Featured Partial Preterism – promotion, objections & relevance today.

Why I am not a Preterist

1. I believe that the whole idea of an invisible coming of Christ is refuted by Acts 1:11.
The Jesus who will return will be the same Jesus who left, and He will return 'in like manner' to the way He left..
He left visibly; He will return visibly. He left with a real 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39) body; He will return with that same body. Witnesses saw Him depart; witnesses will see Him return. Clouds received Him out of their sight; clouds will part to reveal Him (Mark 14:62 etc.).

2. While some of Matthew 24 etc. clearly refers to AD 70, by no means all of it does. Verses 4-14 refer to all the Gospel age: wars and rumours of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, false prophets, deception, lawlessness- all these have been in evidence ever since the Lord Jesus spoke these words right through to the present day, 'but the end is not yet.'
Verses 15-22 probably do refer to the events of AD 70, though they may also foreshadow some future event; time will tell. But we are told very clearly, 'Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There!" Do not believe them.' So I don't. When Christ returns, everyone is going to know about it (Matthew 24:27; Revelation 1:7).
In verses 32-35, our Lord tells the disciples that there will be signs by which the destruction of Jerusalem may be anticipated and informs them that it will happen within a generation. But there is another event (v.36) of which no one but the Father knows either the approximate ('day') or the exact ('hour') time. This event will come suddenly and without warning (vs. 37-51; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 18:8 etc.).

3. Verses which speak of disciples eagerly awaiting the return of Christ do not sit well with His coming in judgement on Jerusalem. In the light of Romans 9:3, why does Paul say 'Maranatha!' in 1 Cor. 15:22 if that coming means nothing but the destruction of thousands of Jews? Consider 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Titus 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:28. Almost all these people were living hundreds of miles from Jerusalem; why would they be 'eagerly awaiting' the destruction of a city which few of them had ever visited? AD 70 would have made no difference whatsoever to their lives. Like Abraham, they were looking for something much better than that (Hebrews 11:10-16).

I haven't finished, but I have to go out now. Perhaps that little lot will be the basis for some interesting discussion.

 

Why I hold to realized eschatology.

101 Preterist Time-Indicators

...besides the fact that I can't bring myself to present Christ and the writers of the NT as liars, or badly mistaken, doing violence to the word of God by pitting scripture against scripture using lame carnal reasoning.to explain away their very plain words.

 

I don't follow you. How do these passages teach that we must interpret the OT in the light of the NT as a primary rule of hermeneutics (which it is in covenant theology and NTC)?

If one believes in the process of progressive revelation, then one must believe that the NT builds on the revelation of the OT rather than that the OT must be interpreted by the NT.

 

Ahhhh, ha ha ha

 

Exegesis of the original languages is not so simple. That is why we use the more technical term "grammatical-historical-theological interpretation."

Thank you kindly.

It's hard to know how to answer this thought without actual examples. I will say, though, that you seem to lump foretelling and forth-telling prophecy together.

I don't look at it as "either...or."

Paul very clearly distinguished Israel as a nation of yet unfulfilled promise in Rom. 9-11. For just one example, one cannot take Rom. 9:3-5 as meaning anything else than Israel. It simply cannot mean the church without twisting the Scripture.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

 

While they did not...their children did.

Not sure why this conclusion is made. God did, after all, promise that land in relation to making Abraham a great nation:


Genesis 12
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:


7 And the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him.


Genesis 15:16-18
King James Version (KJV)

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:


While it is true Paul identifies the Seed as Christ, we do not limit Christ to this tract of land, lol.

So while might agree there is no "spiritual significance" (though we cannot negate the spiritual aspect of all prophecy and promise), the prophetic significance is considerable, and will determine how one balaances all prophecy from Genesis to Revelation).

I'd be curious how many would agree there is no prophetic significance to God's covenantal promise to Abraham.


God bless.

 

Could you give an example of this?

God bless.

 

Sure. I'll pull a couple quick ones from the list above:

15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name`s sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.
23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Mt 10

Martin reduces this passage to Christ casually telling His disciples, "You all go on ahead, I'll catch up with you guys later", when Christ's monologue is clearly referring to a much, much greater 'arrival' than that. So, so Lame. Another:

28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16
1 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart:
2 and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light. Mt 17

Martin reduces this to Christ saying, "Some of you will not die within the next six days" by forcing the coming of the son of man to be the transfiguration. So, so Lame.

But hey, if Martin's happy with that sort of shallow exegesis, to each his own!.

 

The first one, well, go figure, lol.

This one, however, I would suggest another meaning: Christ being glorified and the Kingdom in view being that Kingdom into which we are placed in when we are born again.

The disciples were at this point clueless to what is basic to you and I. They were not yet believing in Christ as they would when they received the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4-5).

But I am not sure how the weakness of a Bible commentator would be a good reason to adopt a System.


God bless.

 

What iste main difference between A Mil and partial view?

 

Thank you for those words, as indeed, we are all one in Christ, and also note that there are some who assumet God ghs fully written off the jewish people, and seem to have a very bitter atitutude towards them!

 

The church is not Israel, but spirtual israel would be the Jews saved by Yeshua and now part of the church, and national israel shall be saved at second coming of Christ!

 

ALL shall see the coming of Jesus, as lighning flashes from east to west across the sky, there shall be the resurrection of dead saints and those alive, there shall be new heaven earth, and NONE of that happened AD 70!

 

Why Larry are you being sarcastic? Point it out & be done with it.

 

Ah1 So that's what's making you so grumpy. I thought it might be indigestion.
As I pointed out before, whatever the text means, it cannot mean that it would take the disciples 40 years to go through the cities (not the villages) of Israel (they are told not to go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans). Israel was (as it is now) a small country, and a year would probably have cracked it.
I suggested two meanings to you, but I forgive you for only mentioning one. Either the disciples would not have got around the cities of Israel before the risen Lord Jesus came to them with new instructions which involved going to the Samaritans and the Gentiles (Acts 1:8 etc.), or He meant that His disciples would not have finished getting around all the cities where God's elect are found before His return in glory. Not much Christian witness in Mogadishu or Mecca as yet.

Yeah! It was only the pathetic old transfiguration. Nothing glorious in that.
'For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the father honour and glory when such a voice came to Him from the excellent glory; "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain' (2 Peter 1:16-18).

Perhaps that's why all three accounts of Christ's words are immediately followed by the account of His 'power and coming' in the glorious transfiguration.

Yep! Pretty happy. But any exegesis is better than none, which is what you tend to provide. Instead, all we get is a long string of texts with no context- in other words, a pretext.

 

Jesus was the Son of Man, so he was already come unto them, and some of them were at the Mount of Transfiguration, correct?

 

You MUST factor intot he Gospels Revelation and Paul Epistles, and they both agree tha econd coming yet to come, and that It will be a physical world wide event!

 

Oh give me a break. Any bitter attitude I may have is solely toward the heretical Zionism that Dispensationalism has morphed into. You people are the most dangerous cult on earth. All other systems of eschatology are rather benign as to their immediate effect on the human race in general, but there is NOTHING benign about the war mongering of Christian Zionism.

 

Covenanter--- I had the pleasure of viewing a conversation between Sinclair Ferguson & R.C. Sproll at a Ligonier conference. At one point in the conversation Ferguson sighted an experience he had had with one of his teachers----who told him, If you think our theology is wackie, just wait till you go to America!

I will bet you are beginning to understand something of what Dr. Ferguson had imparted to him.