Response to [member's names not allowed in thread title] on Partial Preterism

[Reformed]

Hank,

I was unable to respond to your response to my comments in time before the thread was closed.

The reason I said that you misunderstand Partial Preterism ("PP" from here on out), is because the view is not necessarily monolithic. I will explain later.

First, let us get the obvious out of the way. PP rejects the mid-19th-century invention of Dispensationalism. I came out of Dispensationalism, so I understand the vitriolic response from the dispensational side towards any view that does not agree with a pre-wrath rapture, a literal seven-year tribulation, and a thousand year millennium. I used to watch with amusement when dispensationalists attacked each other over pre, mid, and post trib rapture theories. It was only then that I concluded that certainty in the micro areas of eschatology is a difficult thing to claim. To let you know where I am coming from, I hold to Amillennialism and PP with a loose grip. The only eschatological truth I am willing to fall on my sword over is the return of Christ and the future judgment. While I have strong convictions on other eschatological areas, they are not set in concrete.

The Baptist theologian George Eldon Ladd made waves with his view of inaugurated eschatology. He also held to the historic premillennial position (not dispensational premillennialism). While I do not hold to historic premillennialism, I do agree with Ladd on some of his inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom of God is here and not yet. We are citizens of the kingdom, although we do not yet enjoy all the benefits of the glorified state. Ladd called this our "blessed hope".

While I do believe that the many prophetic events were fulfilled by AD 70, I am a bit more eclectic in my eschatology than most strict PP's. I am not alone in this view. Indeed, R.C. Sproul wrote a few years about the eclectic opinions of some PP's. I will go more into my eclectic opinions later this evening. Right now I have to head out the door, but I did not want to wait too long in responding to you.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

I was unable to respond to your response to my comments in time before the thread was closed.

The reason I said that you misunderstand Partial Preterism ("PP" from here on out), is because the view is not necessarily monolithic. I will explain later.

First, let us get the obvious out of the way. PP rejects the mid-19th-century invention of Dispensationalism. I came out of Dispensationalism, so I understand the vitriolic response from the dispensational side towards any view that does not agree with a pre-wrath rapture, a literal seven-year tribulation, and a thousand year millennium. I used to watch with amusement when dispensationalists attacked each other over pre, mid, and post trib rapture theories. It was only then that I concluded that certainty in the micro areas of eschatology is a difficult thing to claim. To let you know where I am coming from, I hold to Amillennialism and PP with a loose grip. The only eschatological truth I am willing to fall on my sword over is the return of Christ and the future judgment. While I have strong convictions on other eschatological areas, they are not set in concrete.

The Baptist theologian George Eldon Ladd made waves with his view of inaugurated eschatology. He also held to the historic premillennial position (not dispensational premillennialism). While I do not hold to historic premillennialism, I do agree with Ladd on some of his inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom of God is here and not yet. We are citizens of the kingdom, although we do not yet enjoy all the benefits of the glorified state. Ladd called this our "blessed hope".

While I do believe that the many prophetic events were fulfilled by AD 70, I am a bit more eclectic in my eschatology than most strict PP's. I am not alone in this view. Indeed, R.C. Sproul wrote a few years about the eclectic opinions of some PP's. I will go more into my eclectic opinions later this evening. Right now I have to head out the door, but I did not want to wait too long in responding to you.

Thanks R.

I believe I had said that any view which holds to a yet "future" return of Jesus Christ would IMO be a futurist view.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Hank,

I was unable to respond to your response to my comments in time before the thread was closed.

The reason I said that you misunderstand Partial Preterism ("PP" from here on out), is because the view is not necessarily monolithic. I will explain later.

First, let us get the obvious out of the way. PP rejects the mid-19th-century invention of Dispensationalism. I came out of Dispensationalism, so I understand the vitriolic response from the dispensational side towards any view that does not agree with a pre-wrath rapture, a literal seven-year tribulation, and a thousand year millennium. I used to watch with amusement when dispensationalists attacked each other over pre, mid, and post trib rapture theories. It was only then that I concluded that certainty in the micro areas of eschatology is a difficult thing to claim. To let you know where I am coming from, I hold to Amillennialism and PP with a loose grip. The only eschatological truth I am willing to fall on my sword over is the return of Christ and the future judgment. While I have strong convictions on other eschatological areas, they are not set in concrete.

The Baptist theologian George Eldon Ladd made waves with his view of inaugurated eschatology. He also held to the historic premillennial position (not dispensational premillennialism). While I do not hold to historic premillennialism, I do agree with Ladd on some of his inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom of God is here and not yet. We are citizens of the kingdom, although we do not yet enjoy all the benefits of the glorified state. Ladd called this our "blessed hope".

While I do believe that the many prophetic events were fulfilled by AD 70, I am a bit more eclectic in my eschatology than most strict PP's. I am not alone in this view. Indeed, R.C. Sproul wrote a few years about the eclectic opinions of some PP's. I will go more into my eclectic opinions later this evening. Right now I have to head out the door, but I did not want to wait too long in responding to you.

What would be the major difference between PP and A mil views then?
And my real concern is with full blown pretierism, as that is heresy!

 

[HankD]

What would be the major difference between PP and A mil views then?
And my real concern is with full blown pretierism, as that is heresy!

Reformed has said that he will give an expanded explanation. Personally no matter, IMO if the return of Christ is yet in the future it is a futurist view. The PP may disagree, so they are entitled.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Reformed has said that he will give an expanded explanation. Personally no matter, IMO if the return of Christ is yet in the future it is a futurist view. The PP may disagree, so they are entitled.

HankD

Entitled to be wrong!

 

[Reformed]

Reformed has said that he will give an expanded explanation. Personally no matter, IMO if the return of Christ is yet in the future it is a futurist view. The PP may disagree, so they are entitled.

HankD

Hank,

I am not here to change your mind. At best, all I seek to do is explain the position I hold to. Others can (and will) do what they want. I am not going to invest my time in defending PP. First, no one is interested in hearing it. Second, it will take a lot of time that is best spent doing other things. What I will do is offer an explanation of things and leave the rest to the readers.

I do believe in the future, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe in a coming judgment. I do believe in the eternal state. I do not believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church, a literal 7-year tribulation, or a literal 1000 year millennial reign. I believe in one return of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the final judgment and the ushering in of the eternal state. Could I be wrong on these beliefs? Certainly. Any of us could be wrong, therefore I am not going to write with a haughty or arrogant attitude.

Preterism and Partial Preterism are not the same. In fact, PP's are probably more vocal in their opposition to full preterism than Dispensationalists. The reason that I view PP's as eclectic in their eschatology is that they do hold to a quasi-futurist position on the second coming, the final judgment, and the eternal state. PP's do not hold to the Dispensationalist view of the end times. There is a minority of PP's that hold to historic Premillennialism (a.k.a. Chialism). Historic Premillennialism certainly does not fit the average Dispensationalists view of PP. That is another reason why I point to the eclectic nature of PP.

In the end, the differences between Dispensational eschatology and PP eschatology come down to how each side views Israel and the Church. I hold to Covenant Theology, and therefore see God's dealing with His one called out people in another way than Dispensationalists who see a difference between OT saints and NT saints. Those differences drive our eschatology.

This topic is unlike Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. There are Calvinists who are Dispensationalists. I find that to be an amazing thing, but it is what it is. However, both eschatological positions believe in the return of Christ, the final judgment, and the eternal state. I wish it was as simple as it sounds, but we both know that is not the case.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

I am not here to change your mind. At best, all I seek to do is explain the position I hold to. Others can (and will) do what they want. I am not going to invest my time in defending PP. First, no one is interested in hearing it. Second, it will take a lot of time that is best spent doing other things. What I will do is offer an explanation of things and leave the rest to the readers.

I do believe in the future, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe in a coming judgment. I do believe in the eternal state. I do not believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church, a literal 7-year tribulation, or a literal 1000 year millennial reign. I believe in one return of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the final judgment and the ushering in of the eternal state. Could I be wrong on these beliefs? Certainly. Any of us could be wrong, therefore I am not going to write with a haughty or arrogant attitude.

Preterism and Partial Preterism are not the same. In fact, PP's are probably more vocal in their opposition to full preterism than Dispensationalists. The reason that I view PP's as eclectic in their eschatology is that they do hold to a quasi-futurist position on the second coming, the final judgment, and the eternal state. PP's do not hold to the Dispensationalist view of the end times. There is a minority of PP's that hold to historic Premillennialism (a.k.a. Chialism). Historic Premillennialism certainly does not fit the average Dispensationalists view of PP. That is another reason why I point to the eclectic nature of PP.

In the end, the differences between Dispensational eschatology and PP eschatology come down to how each side views Israel and the Church. I hold to Covenant Theology, and therefore see God's dealing with His one called out people in another way than Dispensationalists who see a difference between OT saints and NT saints. Those differences drive our eschatology.

This topic is unlike Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. There are Calvinists who are Dispensationalists. I find that to be an amazing thing, but it is what it is. However, both eschatological positions believe in the return of Christ, the final judgment, and the eternal state. I wish it was as simple as it sounds, but we both know that is not the case.

Great. I too want more to understand our differences rather than debate them, however I do enter into debates to exercise my mind..

Thank you for the summary - I appreciate it brother.

HankD

 

[Covenanter]

May I suggest you edit the title of this thread:

Response to [member's names not allowed in thread title] on Partial Preterism

 

[Covenanter]

I've written a hymn based on Revelation from a Fulfilment Theology viewpoint:

Verse 4 - sing to e.g. "What a friend we have in Jesus."

4. Revelation 7, 14
Twelve twelve thousands of God's servants;
First fruits of Israel's twelve tribes;
Sealed from wrath on 'this generation'
Sealed by God their Saviour's name.
These come out of tribulation;
Washed and white in Jesus' blood;
Christ the Lamb will be their Shepherd;
Every tear be dried by God.​

I've wondered about the 144,000 since I met my first JW over 60 years ago. Now I think they are the believing Jews who fled from Jerusalem before the destruction.

Compare - Revelation 7:1 with Matthew 24:31 The Greek γῆ gē is variously translated, particularly "earth" or "land" (of Israel) depending on the translators understanding of the context. The scale of the various Revelation judgments is consistent with AD 70, rather than some future earth-wide tribulation.

 

[HankD]

I've written a hymn based on Revelation from a Fulfilment Theology viewpoint:

Verse 4 - sing to e.g. "What a friend we have in Jesus."

4. Revelation 7, 14
Twelve twelve thousands of God's servants;
First fruits of Israel's twelve tribes;
Sealed from wrath on 'this generation'
Sealed by God their Saviour's name.
These come out of tribulation;
Washed and white in Jesus' blood;
Christ the Lamb will be their Shepherd;
Every tear be dried by God.​

I've wondered about the 144,000 since I met my first JW over 60 years ago. Now I think they are the believing Jews who fled from Jerusalem before the destruction.

Compare - Revelation 7:1 with Matthew 24:31 The Greek γῆ gē is variously translated, particularly "earth" or "land" (of Israel) depending on the translators understanding of the context. The scale of the various Revelation judgments is consistent with AD 70, rather than some future earth-wide tribulation.

Then why is the beginning scene set in Asia Minor - Revelation 1 - 3?

HankD

 

[Covenanter]

Then why is the beginning scene set in Asia Minor - Revelation 1 - 3?

HankD

John was writing from Patmos to the local churches. Jews who had rejected the Gospel were active in Asia Minor & were corrupting the churches - see Galatians.

It is highly probable that the message of Revelation would travel through Asia Minor to encourage John's companion in tribulation, & on through Antioch to Judea. Paul encouraged his readers to share his letters, & the message of Rev. 2-3 was intended for everyone with ears to hear.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hank,

I am not here to change your mind. At best, all I seek to do is explain the position I hold to. Others can (and will) do what they want. I am not going to invest my time in defending PP. First, no one is interested in hearing it. Second, it will take a lot of time that is best spent doing other things. What I will do is offer an explanation of things and leave the rest to the readers.

I do believe in the future, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do believe in a coming judgment. I do believe in the eternal state. I do not believe in a pre-wrath rapture of the Church, a literal 7-year tribulation, or a literal 1000 year millennial reign. I believe in one return of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the final judgment and the ushering in of the eternal state. Could I be wrong on these beliefs? Certainly. Any of us could be wrong, therefore I am not going to write with a haughty or arrogant attitude.

Preterism and Partial Preterism are not the same. In fact, PP's are probably more vocal in their opposition to full preterism than Dispensationalists. The reason that I view PP's as eclectic in their eschatology is that they do hold to a quasi-futurist position on the second coming, the final judgment, and the eternal state. PP's do not hold to the Dispensationalist view of the end times. There is a minority of PP's that hold to historic Premillennialism (a.k.a. Chialism). Historic Premillennialism certainly does not fit the average Dispensationalists view of PP. That is another reason why I point to the eclectic nature of PP.

In the end, the differences between Dispensational eschatology and PP eschatology come down to how each side views Israel and the Church. I hold to Covenant Theology, and therefore see God's dealing with His one called out people in another way than Dispensationalists who see a difference between OT saints and NT saints. Those differences drive our eschatology.

This topic is unlike Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. There are Calvinists who are Dispensationalists. I find that to be an amazing thing, but it is what it is. However, both eschatological positions believe in the return of Christ, the final judgment, and the eternal state. I wish it was as simple as it sounds, but we both know that is not the case.

What is main difference between PP and A Mil,. as what you hold with seems to be A Mil!

 

[HankD]

John was writing from Patmos to the local churches. Jews who had rejected the Gospel were active in Asia Minor & were corrupting the churches - see Galatians.

It is highly probable that the message of Revelation would travel through Asia Minor to encourage John's companion in tribulation, & on through Antioch to Judea. Paul encouraged his readers to share his letters, & the message of Rev. 2-3 was intended for everyone with ears to hear.

The seven churches of Asia are addressed in Revelation 1:4, The kings (plural) of the earth in verse 5, the churches in Asia are named in verses 11 and 12.

The book of Revelation and terms (e.g. earth,kings) which follow begins with and has a wider scope than your claim to the "land" of Israel.

The book ending with a reiteration and a testimony to these Gentile churches in Gentile lands.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Therefore, IMO your proposition of the definition of "earth" in the Book of Revelation as limited to the "land" of Israel does not hold water.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

The seven churches of Asia are addressed in Revelation 1:4, The kings (plural) of the earth in verse 5, the churches in Asia are named in verses 11 and 12.

The book of Revelation and terms (e.g. earth,kings) which follow begins with and has a wider scope than your claim to the "land" of Israel.

The book ending with a reiteration and a testimony to these Gentile churches in Gentile lands.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Therefore, IMO your proposition of the definition of "earth" in the Book of Revelation as limited to the "land" of Israel does not hold water.

HankD

Is it 1/4 of Israelwho will die in Revelation, or of the entire earth? Is God judging and pouring wrath upon all nations then, or just Israel?

 

[HankD]

Is it 1/4 of Israelwho will die in Revelation, or of the entire earth? Is God judging and pouring wrath upon all nations then, or just Israel?

All.

HankD

 

[Reformed]

May I suggest you edit the title of this thread:

Response to [member's names not allowed in thread title] on Partial Preterism

I am not able to. A moderator did that.

 

[Reformed]

What is main difference between PP and A Mil,. as what you hold with seems to be A Mil!

I am Amil. Most Amils are Partial Preterists.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am Amil. Most Amils are Partial Preterists.

So the main difference between full and partial view is regarding if the Second Coming and Resurrection has already happened then?

 

[Reformed]

So the main difference between full and partial view is regarding if the Second Coming and Resurrection has already happened then?

Mostly, although there are other differences that pale in significance to the denial of a future second coming and resurrection of the dead.

 

[Covenanter]

The seven churches of Asia are addressed in Revelation 1:4, The kings (plural) of the earth in verse 5, the churches in Asia are named in verses 11 and 12.

The book of Revelation and terms (e.g. earth,kings) which follow begins with and has a wider scope than your claim to the "land" of Israel.

The book ending with a reiteration and a testimony to these Gentile churches in Gentile lands.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Therefore, IMO your proposition of the definition of "earth" in the Book of Revelation as limited to the "land" of Israel does not hold water.

HankD

This verse considers the opening chapters:

5. John 16, Revelation 1-3
In the world we've tribulation,
Christ has overcome the world.
He has words for all the churches,
We have ears to hear his words.
Love him first and love each other,
Trust and witness, watch and pray.
Christ is King and Lord and Saviour,
He'll be with us all the way.
​

And this verse the final chapters:

6. Revelation 21-22
Richly blessed are all in Jesus,
Blessed the dead who die in him.
He's our God and we his people:
Covenant promise in his Word.
Now's the time, day of salvation,
We will see new heaven and earth.
Turn from sin and trust your Saviour:
Jesus gives eternal life.
​