Would Full Preterism be seen as heresy?

[Martin Marprelate]

There are nonBiblical beliefs deemed by a majority to be Christian orthodoxy.

I think this deserves a further answer.
I do not agree with Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Episcopalianism or Presbyterianism. The reason I do not agree with them is that I don't find them in the Bible. But I accept that these beliefs are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and we would welcome people with such beliefs into my church so long as they understood and accepted that they would not be taught from the pulpit and undertook not to teach them clandestinely within the church.
Beliefs such as Unitarianism and Hyper-preterism are not IMO within the pale, and while we would allow people who believe in it to come to the church, they would not be eligible for membership.

 

[37818]

I think this deserves a further answer.
I do not agree with Dispensationalism, Arminianism, Episcopalianism or Presbyterianism. The reason I do not agree with them is that I don't find them in the Bible. But I accept that these beliefs are within the pale of Christian orthodoxy and we would welcome people with such beliefs into my church so long as they understood and accepted that they would not be taught from the pulpit and undertook not to teach them clandestinely within the church.
Beliefs such as Unitarianism and Hyper-preterism are not IMO within the pale, and while we would allow people who believe in it to come to the church, they would not be eligible for membership.

There is Biblical Dispensationalism. There are interpertations and there is what the word of God says. The problem are some interpertations which have no basis in the word of God. None what so ever made to be heresy to disagree with. A majority of Christians are OK with it's error as truth.

 

[robycop3]

Much as I dislike preterism, I would hesitate to call it heresy. But I have NO hesitation to call it PHONY AND COMPLETELY FALSE, full or partial !

 

[thomas15]

Some in camp covenant are tired of saying the same thing so it is an opportunity to irk the dispies! I say this because it is so easy to disprove.

 

[Mikey]

Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple.

Most Partial Preterists also believe the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic covenant which God had exclusively with national Israel until the year AD 70. These last days, however, are to be distinguished from the "last day," which is considered still future and entails the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like-manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final judgment ...

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that it sees all prophecy fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by other names, such as Consistent Preterism or Hyper-Preterism.

Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future-to-us bodily return, but rather a "return" manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in AD 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead," known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire.

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/preterism


If this accurately represents the Full-Preterist position, then I would consider it heresy.

 

[asterisktom]

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that it sees all prophecy fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by other names, such as Consistent Preterism or Hyper-Preterism.

Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future-to-us bodily return, but rather a "return" manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in AD 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead," known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire.

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/preterism


If this accurately represents the Full-Preterist position, then I would consider it heresy.

As far as I know I am the only Full Preterist here but I have problems with this Theopedia article. That article, especially the last sentence, makes it seem like we believe everything is in the past. Well, it isn't. Hebrews 9:27, for instance, is still in our future. Our meeting God is still in our future. Sin, judgment, grace, the Gospel are all very real concerns.

The article also simplifies Full Preterism. There are three or four very divergent views within FP. Unfortunately right now the most popular variant of FP is that of Max King, which is now mainly promulgated by Don K. Preston and William Bell. And I would call their view seriously in error (I am being restrained here). They believe we are saved by the spiritual death of Christ on the cross - well before He actually died. And that the blood of Jesus Christ had nothing to with it. A horrible belief!

BTW, I still challenge anyone to show me from the Bible how Full Preterism, as I have presented it over the years here, is wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

depends on the details. To deny the second coming/ second coming has already happened is heresy. Do all Preterists believ this i don't know.

Full blown views do!

 

[Yeshua1]

Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple.

Most Partial Preterists also believe the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic covenant which God had exclusively with national Israel until the year AD 70. These last days, however, are to be distinguished from the "last day," which is considered still future and entails the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like-manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final judgment ...

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that it sees all prophecy fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming or Parousia. Full Preterism is also known by other names, such as Consistent Preterism or Hyper-Preterism.

Full Preterism holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a future-to-us bodily return, but rather a "return" manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in AD 70 by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the Resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead," known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire.

Source: https://www.theopedia.com/preterism
agreed, as the historical Church always saw full blown as being heresy!

If this accurately represents the Full-Preterist position, then I would consider it heresy.

 

[robycop3]

Some in camp covenant are tired of saying the same thing so it is an opportunity to irk the dispies! I say this because it is so easy to disprove.

Another pret mistake is to refer to all opponents of preterism as "dispies".

I myself, an avowed opponent of preterism, believe in only 3 dispensations: Before Jesus' earthly ministry, the present "Church Age", founded by Jesus, & the future world after Jesus returns.

 

[robycop3]

As far as I know I am the only Full Preterist here but I have problems with this Theopedia article. That article, especially the last sentence, makes it seem like we believe everything is in the past. Well, it isn't. Hebrews 9:27, for instance, is still in our future. Our meeting God is still in our future. Sin, judgment, grace, the Gospel are all very real concerns.

The article also simplifies Full Preterism. There are three or four very divergent views within FP. Unfortunately right now the most popular variant of FP is that of Max King, which is now mainly promulgated by Don K. Preston and William Bell. And I would call their view seriously in error (I am being restrained here). They believe we are saved by the spiritual death of Christ on the cross - well before He actually died. And that the blood of Jesus Christ had nothing to with it. A horrible belief!

BTW, I still challenge anyone to show me from the Bible how Full Preterism, as I have presented it over the years here, is wrong.

That's VERY EASY ! First, some of the prophecies given to daniel, such as that of the great statue smashed by the boulder, Paul in 2 Thess.2 speaking of the "man of sin" who is yet to come, the whole Book of the Revelation, and finally JESUS HIMSELF in His Olivet Discourse. All those plainly describe events which haven't yet happened. You CANNOT get by that big ole bear of a fact!

What HAS occurred is the fulfillment of the "days of vengeance" against the Jews. That generation was held responsible for all the murders of the righteous, from Abel up to the time Jesus made the prophecy. Then, they were punished further for the murder of Jesus & the apostles, and their continued false worship while rejecting Jesus as Messiah. The punishment against the Jews of that generation was from 66-70 AD, while a greater punishment against them began with Hadrian's booting them from their land 135-136 AD, a punishment that continued through the nazi holocaust, with God's lifting it in 1945.

But the other plainly-prophesied events, ESPECIALLY JESUS' RETURN, have obviously NOT YET HAPPENED! No pret can get by that FACT! You'd do well to abandon the garbage of Preston, Gentry, etc. & read the BIBLE more-closely, along with a good dose of world history !

 

[robycop3]

And that goes for partial prets as well. Jesus Himself proves that doctrine false in Matt. 24:29-31.

 

[37818]

And that goes for partial prets as well. Jesus Himself proves that doctrine false in Matt. 24:29-31.

Orthodox Preterism understands the language of Matthew 24:29-31 as Hebrew figures of speech like used by the OT prophets. Personally I do not follow their thinking - I agree with you here.

 

[asterisktom]

That's VERY EASY ! First, some of the prophecies given to daniel, such as that of the great statue smashed by the boulder, Paul in 2 Thess.2 speaking of the "man of sin" who is yet to come, the whole Book of the Revelation, and finally JESUS HIMSELF in His Olivet Discourse. All those plainly describe events which haven't yet happened. You CANNOT get by that big ole bear of a fact!

What HAS occurred is the fulfillment of the "days of vengeance" against the Jews. That generation was held responsible for all the murders of the righteous, from Abel up to the time Jesus made the prophecy. Then, they were punished further for the murder of Jesus & the apostles, and their continued false worship while rejecting Jesus as Messiah. The punishment against the Jews of that generation was from 66-70 AD, while a greater punishment against them began with Hadrian's booting them from their land 135-136 AD, a punishment that continued through the nazi holocaust, with God's lifting it in 1945.

But the other plainly-prophesied events, ESPECIALLY JESUS' RETURN, have obviously NOT YET HAPPENED! No pret can get by that FACT! You'd do well to abandon the garbage of Preston, Gentry, etc. & read the BIBLE more-closely, along with a good dose of world history !

So you are still waiting for that great multi-metallic statue to be built? And then smashed by an actual boulder from the sky, unmade by human hands (which pretty much describes all boulders)?

 

[37818]

At the heart of Orthodox Prterist view point is understanding Matthew 24 as Jesus' answer to His disciples regarding His prophecy in Mathew 21:2, "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. . . ." The key verse in Matthew 24 where Jesus is to be understood to refer to His disciples as "this generation" meaning those evens are to take place in some of His disciples life time, 70 AD.

 

[thomas15]

And that goes for partial prets as well. Jesus Himself proves that doctrine false in Matt. 24:29-31.

I don't want to go to the wall on this and not to insult anyone but I think some in the Camp Covenant Crowd are there because they are convinced that it is the intellectual thing to do. They can escape having the task of explaining that (for example) the flood of Noah or the walls of Jericho referring to them as ideas or illustrations and not have to defend the Bible which is the actual bedrock of the faith. It is in fact a liberalizing (to some degree) of the Scriptures. Again, not to offend anyone and not all reformed fit this but the further you go away from dispensationalism the more allegory you can read into the Bible and not get criticized by the main body.

Partial preterism is one way in my opinion to soften the blow of allowing what is clearly not possible today (full preterism). You cannot be a preterist and a dispensationalist without twisting your theology into all kinds of knots. Both (full/partial pret) are an attempt to put a spin on the desire of the church to make the church the kingdom promised in the covenants to Israel. I'm actually grateful for full preterism because while some in the reformed crowd take great joy in trying to paint the dispies as kooks, the full pret crowd, with their complete lack of historic and Biblical backup, give us dispies a well deserved rest.

 

[atpollard]

Some useful definitions and terms from THEOPEDIA:


ORTHODOX:

The word orthodox comes from two Greek words, ortho + doxa, meaning "right opinion" or "correct thinking."

In Christianity, it generally means adhering to the accepted or traditional historic Christian faith. Some see "orthodoxy" as that which is defined by the early ecumenical creeds which would include the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, popularly known in the West as the Nicene Creed, that was formally accepted by the second Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The Apostles' Creed and the Athanasian Creed are accepted as ecumenical in the Western Christian confessions, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations (e.g. see the Lutheran Book of Concord where all three of these creeds are given as "ecumenical").

"Orthodoxy" may also be described as the least common denominator by which an individual, group, or church may legitimately claim the name "Christian." In this sense, orthodox would refer to essential doctrines defining the essence of Christianity.​

HERESY:

Heresy is a teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation. The term is derived from the Greek word hairesis, literally meaning a choice, but referring more specifically to a sect, party or disunion. Luke uses the term in Acts to refer to the sects of the Sadducees (5:17), Pharisees (15:5; 26:5), and even the Christians - called Nazarenes and the Way (24:5,14; 28:22). When Paul uses the term in 1 Corinthians and Galatians, he refers to the divisions which cause strife in the church, while Peter links the term to false prophets and teachers.

While there is a temptation for Christians to label whatever is not in keeping with sound doctrine as heresy, the Bible seems to make the distinction that heresy is not merely the opposite of orthodoxy. Rather, heresy is a divisive teaching or practice which forces those who call themselves Christians to separate from it or face condemnation for it. John the Apostle gave a prime example of such a doctrine: denying the true nature of the person and work of Jesus Christ (I John 4:1-3; 2 John 1:7-11).​

HETERODOX:

The term heterodox simply means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.". Used in contrast to orthodoxy, it is synonymous with the term "unorthodox" and is even closely tied to the word, " heresy".​

 

[robycop3]

Orthodox Preterism understands the language of Matthew 24:29-31 as Hebrew figures of speech like used by the OT prophets. Personally I do not follow their thinking - I agree with you here.

That's good, as other things Jesus said in the OD have literally come to pass, such as the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple. There's no good reason to suddenly switch to symbolic discernment in the middle of the same Discourse!

 

[robycop3]

So you are still waiting for that great multi-metallic statue to be built? And then smashed by an actual boulder from the sky, unmade by human hands (which pretty much describes all boulders)?

The angel supplied daniel with the interp of that vision, & it's plain its final fulfillment hasn't yet happened.

 

[robycop3]

I don't want to go to the wall on this and not to insult anyone but I think some in the Camp Covenant Crowd are there because they are convinced that it is the intellectual thing to do. They can escape having the task of explaining that (for example) the flood of Noah or the walls of Jericho referring to them as ideas or illustrations and not have to defend the Bible which is the actual bedrock of the faith. It is in fact a liberalizing (to some degree) of the Scriptures. Again, not to offend anyone and not all reformed fit this but the further you go away from dispensationalism the more allegory you can read into the Bible and not get criticized by the main body.

Partial preterism is one way in my opinion to soften the blow of allowing what is clearly not possible today (full preterism). You cannot be a preterist and a dispensationalist without twisting your theology into all kinds of knots. Both (full/partial pret) are an attempt to put a spin on the desire of the church to make the church the kingdom promised in the covenants to Israel. I'm actually grateful for full preterism because while some in the reformed crowd take great joy in trying to paint the dispies as kooks, the full pret crowd, with their complete lack of historic and Biblical backup, give us dispies a well deserved rest.

I agree with A. T. Pollard's post below yours. There are a few things about both preterisms that could be considered heresy, my opinion is that they're both heterodox & completely false.

Some things that could be considered heresy are reducing certain Scriptures to "figurative/symbolic" status with no valid reason for such. Another is ignoring Jesus' words that His return would be in great power & glory & would be seen by all, even those who pierced Him. We see more about His return in Revelation, & we see the antichrist sending his army against Him. Obviously, that hasn't yet happened !

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm not going to argue the point I will just post scripture and let it stand on its own... I believe it just as it says it is and have not questioned it since I joined many years ago, and as The Apostle Paul said it is a mystery but not to God!... Brother Glen

1 Corinthians 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

15:57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.