Any full preterists?

[Ed Jones]

Originally posted by FriendofSpurgeon:
Ed ---

Sorry, I disagree and would encourage you to read his book. Throughout the book, he consistently refers to the Scriptures - usually the Olivet Discourse in the synoptic Gospels.

BTW, Sproul is not a full preterist, and points out his problems (from a Scriptural standpoint) with full preterism. It is a very interesting and scholarly read. You may enjoy it.

I do not find a complete preterist viewpoint to be heretical, though personally, I do not agree with it.

I'm not sure that I would.

Like most people here, I'm searching for the truth about the end times. Full & Partial preterism are both positions that I have evaluated. They both have Scriptural inconsistencies. So unless he addresses all of the problems that I have with his position or presents a different view of partial preterism as I know it, I don't think it would be a satisfying read.

Ed

 

[Ed Jones]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Someone said, 'The mark of the beast is symbolic or allegorical . . . '

Hermaneutics will not allow us to take Genesis through Jude literally and then in the Book of Revelation allegorically. God's Word was written for the average person to understand. There are no hidden meanings or mysterious interpretations. Do not add to nor detract from the Word of truth. [Revelation 22:18-1

The mark of the beast is the number of a man. [Revelation 13:18]

Ray,

Unfortunately, there isn't much thought toward methods of hermeneutics. Although people can have different methods to interpret the Bible, I agree it must be applied consistently and logically line up with Scripture.

The only way I've found to quickly cut through many debates is to establish an understanding of the other person's conclusions/methods and look to see where it doesn't line up within the context they have created. Assume what they are saying is true and ask enough questions to expose the inconsistency.

For me, it's a true Berean method and it works well. IMO, simply debating the strengths of competing positions is a waste of time.

Ed

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
Gina L

When you fail to understand a viewpoint because it goes against your mainline orthodox beliefs you immediatly brand them a "heretic?" Would you burn me at the stake as was done by the early catholic church? When you can answer the questions and statements that I have presented above, then I will look, and if convinced-- see the light(or your light). When you have put in the eschatological studies and written the papers on the subject as I have, maybe then we could understand each other. I apparently went a little further than you, as I looked and studied ALL the views before rushing to a decision! But to whip out the old "heretic" card because you do not want to examine something that could be truth-- well I trump your "heretic" card with the King-- the KING of all KINGS! Go with God, not with man.

Whoa, I missed your reply. Note that I said *most* people view it as heretical. I do not agree with what you say, although I did make an attempt to study and consider it in the not so distant past. I understand it enough to disagree with it, but not to flat out call it heresy. However, most Baptists I know of would.
I'm sorry if I offended you with my reply. It was not meant to do so. Your post had expressed shock that others hadn't responded, and I gave what I figured was most likely the logical explanation for that lack of response.
Gina

 

[Ray Berrian]

eschatologist,

I think you wrote these words; correct me if I am wrong.

You said, 'When you have put in the eschatological
studies and written the papers on the subject as I have,
maybe then we could understand each other.'

Ray is saying, 'I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, when I say you are about as wrong as you will ever be about the doctrines of end times, unless you let the Scripture speak to you in a literal interpretation in the future.

The Bible teaches a PreTribulation rapture and then the sovereign reign of Christ on the earth for 1,000 years. I would have thought that by reading Revelation chapter twenty, you would have seen the repeated term, (1,000 years) as if God was really emphasizing this to all Christians, maybe for doubters like yourself. Also, read Zechariah chapter fourteen in a modern translation; it will help clear up what you have missed in your study and vast writings.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Hermaneutics will not allow us to take Genesis through Jude literally and then in the Book of Revelation allegorically.

Isn't apocalyptic literature inherently symbolic? Do you believe that Satan is literally a great red dragon and that he literally sweeps a third of the the physical stars onto the physical earth?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

If a dispensational premillenium viewpoint is so obvious, then I wonder what the discussions are all about? If all of Bible scholars who are amil, postmil, historic premil, preterist, or other would simply read Chapter 20, they could be in agreement with you.

Also, if everything is to be taken literally, what about the countless times where Jesus himself talks about coming quickly and the end is near? Or, is that part not literal? Just wondering.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here's a link to my web page with a downloadable study outline of Revelation:

http://www.epud.net/~richmond/bible/amain.htm

I guess its sorta preterist but not full preterist.

 

[eschatologist]

Ray Berrian

Ray is saying: "I would have thought that by reading Revelation chapter twenty, you would have seen the repeated term, (1000)as if God was really emphasising this to all Christians, maybe for doubters like yourself."

Eschatologist is saying, In this one statement you have shown the entire tale of your one-sided hermenuetics! If repetition really had any bearing on an issue, as you have so accused me of neglecting, then you yourself have broken your own rule and apparently haven't heard any of my earlier arguments about the timing issue that preterists so often note. So here is some repetition for you to tickle your thought with:

Soon(Rev.1:1;2:16;3:11;22:6,7,12,20)

Near(Rev.1:3;22:10)

What kind of double standard theology are you attempting to pull here? You say one thing, yet completely ignore the other!

Second it is your belief that the entire bible is written in a complete "literal" format. Jesus HIMSELF told His disciples that He was speaking to them figuratively(Jo.16:25f)! And this is just the tip of the iceberg(figurative), for I could load this entire web-site with figurative language from the bible(and I will if need be). So please provide for me the "literal" scripture from which you get a "PreTribulation rapture." And why have you NOT taken the words "SOON" and "NEAR" literal? And "literally" speaking you better be out trying to find someone to lop you head off so you can be one of those saints who can reign with Christ for a thousand years(Rev.20:4). Or might this actually be symbolic? I can't wait to hear a reply from you on this!

 

[Southern]

Rider,
Full Preterism is new to me. What is one of the verses that "you" use to teach this view of eschatology? I would like some correspondence.

In Christ,
Bobby

 

[eschatologist]

Southern

Here are a few of note:

Matt.16:27,28;24:34;26:64;Mark 9:1;13:30;Luke 9:26,27;21:32;John 5:25;12:30;21:22,23;Rom.16:20;Heb.10:37;Jam.5:7-9;1Pet.1:5;4:7,17;Rev.1:1,3,7;22:6,7,10,12,20

These are but a few, but there it is enough for you to get started with looking into some of the verses used in the preterist view point of eschatology.

 

[Southern]

eschatologist,
I noticed you said "pretrist" use these verses. Do you mean "full" pretrist? Not squabbling over words, just know that pretrist can refer to a couple different schools of thought. Their is orthodox preterism (so to speak)of Gentry, Sproul.
Thanks for these scriptures to get me started, I am only 'somewhat' aware of this position (Resurection is passed and we are in eternal state). Sadly, That about exhausts my knowledge of the position.
anyways,

Thanks,
Bobby

 

[eschatologist]

Southern

Some are used by both schools of preterism. But like most preterists, I have at one time been a futurist, historicist and partial preterist at one time. As a matter of fact I made it a point to study all the different views. Many people do not do this, and, consequently, from ignorance refute any other view. See if you can locate this book:

Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary
by, Steven Gregg (1997)

This is a very good book, although it references mostly partial preterists. It will give you a very good understanding about the other various major views. It will get you leaning in the right direction and hungry for more.

A word of caution though. Many feel nervous about the preterist view. Yet in the several years of study and the numerous books that I have read and my own personal bible study, it is only the preterist view that has truly made sense. I am also in the process(and it has been a long one) in creating an outline to put my own notes into a book.

If there is anything that I can help you with feel free to ask. Go with God!!!

 

[Southern]

Eschatologist,
I have "that" book with the Partial defended by I believe Kenneth Gentry. Of course I agree with Gentry in his "partial" preterism of key passages such as the first half of Mat. 24 and Revelation having a direct relevance to the people it was written to. I will look at the verses you give me and get back with you to find out "your" particular understanding. To be up front, of course I disagree with "full" preterism (the parts of your position that I am "aware" of) because of my own understanding of certain texts and would like to follow up with you on some of these passages.

In Christ,
Bobby

 

[Ray Berrian]

If the resurrection from the dead has happened already then the bodies in the vaults in cemeteries should all be empty.

If we are in the eternal state then why do human beings now die and are laid in the graves?
This is a little like the Catholics who believe that we are now in the "Kingdom of God" age, right here on earth.

This is the age of the church and we are awaiting the return of our Lord.

 

[Ed Jones]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
If there is anything that I can help you with feel free to ask...

Yes, I would. You haven't responded to my last post to you.

What is the mark of the beast? How were believers under the law between the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem?

People may debate the validity of this position or even whether or not it is heretical. But my view is that you have to be clear on the identity of the Antichrist and the mark of the beast. You don't want to be looking the wrong way when he shows up and be fooled into taking the mark.

Jesus was quite clear about His return:

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

If you have to ask whether or not Jesus has returned, don't worry He hasn't. Yet the preterist view says that he has.

Look at Luke's witness:

Luk 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
Luk 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Luk 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

When did this happen? It didn't. Yet the preterist says that it has. (A figurative interpretation here would be a reach because everything in this passage up to these verses literally happened in the first century.)

BTW, what is the redemption in verse 28? Most everyone accepts this as Jesus coming for believers. What is it from the preterist view? It cannot be our redemption from sin because the cross occured before this point.

Excuse my directness, but this is very serious. This position causes people not to be watching for the Lord's return. (See 2 Tim 2:17-18) I could understand if there was irrefutable Biblical support for this position. But with a few simple questions errors are apparent.


Ed

 

[eschatologist]

Ed Jones

I understand your caution. I asked the same questions as you have early on in my studies in eschatology.

The mark of the beast. Was it physical or symbolic? I need to do more research into this because I can not recall what I have in my notes off hand, and I was not so much worried about the meaning, only to who(Nero Caesar) it pertained to. I do know that marking individuals is used else where in the bible(I believe Ezekiel or Jeremiah). I will look into that though.

You can say from the time of Christ(possibly His departure) to the time of 70 AD was a transition period. It was similar in some aspects to the time of transition for the Jews during their wandering in the wilderness. I believe it is more than a coincidence that both of these time periods were 40 years. This is a typology. According to the Hebrew writer the old covenant was slowly fading away(Heb.8:13) and the new covenant was being completed or established in full. As Paul said, they were under grace and they had already begun distancing themselves from Jewish Law and traditions. They were already following the commands of Christ but they had not yet intered into completeness. That would happen in 70 AD when Christ came as He had promised(Heb.10:37) and completely removed(fulfilled) the old covenant and established the second(Heb.10:9).

You are absolutely correct when you said that Jesus was "clear" about His return. The problem is that many are not "clear" about their understanding to just what Jesus meant! In your reference to Matthew 24:27:

For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened(Matt.24:34).

The 'key' words here are: truth, generation certainly, until, all, and happened. What Jesus said here was truth! Do you not believe our Lords own words?! It was to happen in THEIR generation!

The same goes for the Luke 21 verses that you noted. These are parallel to the above Matthew account. But what is something extra to note in Luke 21:28 is that He(Jesus) said "Stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." He said it was "near." Then, as in Matthew, he said that it would happen in their generation(Lu.21:32)! I do not have any problem taking Jesus at His word. I believe He meant what He said, and said what He meant! Most of the modern scholorship today spends paragraph upon paragraph trying to side-step what Jesus said and try to convince us what He really meant.

In Luke 21:25 when Jesus referenced the heavenly signs, these were exactly the same symbolisms used in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc. when a nation was going to be destroyed, either by the Egyptians, Assyrians, or Babylonians. Surely you can not take these Old Testament accounds literally, because this universe would then have been destroyed several times over!!! What this symbolism meant was that a nation and its authority(leaders) were going to be destroyed by a powerful nation as the will of God dictated. I am sorry if this upsets anyone's apple cart(allegory), but I challenge you to go look these accounts up in the Old Testament. When they were being used in the New Testament, it was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel and her leadership by the Romans and the removal of her covenant relationship with God.

If you choose to bash me and call me a heretic, so be it. At least explain how the above comments are incorrect, then I will elaborate further. Go with God not man.

 

[Ed Jones]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
The mark of the beast. Was it physical or symbolic? I need to do more research into this because I can not recall what I have in my notes off hand, and I was not so much worried about the meaning, only to who(Nero Caesar) it pertained to. I do know that marking individuals is used else where in the bible(I believe Ezekiel or Jeremiah).

Well make sure that your interpretation explains how Nero's false prophet (BTW, who was he?) caused everyone everywhere to receive a mark in their right hand or forehead and they couldn't buy or sell without it.

You can say from the time of Christ(possibly His departure) to the time of 70 AD was a transition period... That would happen in 70 AD when Christ came as He had promised(Heb.10:37) and completely removed(fulfilled) the old covenant and established the second(Heb.10:9).

By saying this, aren't you saying that the cross of Christ did not establish the new covenant? What about the following verses?

Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Hbr 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

One sacrifice and Jesus was through. He did not have to end temple worship to establish the new covenant. His death on the cross was enough.

The 'key' words here are: truth, generation certainly, until, all, and happened. What Jesus said here was truth! Do you not believe our Lords own words?! It was to happen in THEIR generation!

Did you hear that Moses played tennis? The Bible says that he served in Pharoah's court.

But seriously, in Biblical interpretation context is "king". Before both references in Matt.24:34 and Luke 21:28, it says that you will see these “things” begin to happen before this generation passes away. What are these “things”? Nations rising against nations, wars and rumors of wars, the love of many growing cold, etc. etc… Matt 24:32-33 talks about the fig tree budding (return of the nation of Israel). These things did not happen in the first century. This is the context of these verses. The generation that sees these things will not pass away before a complete fulfillment.

In Luke 21:25 when Jesus referenced the heavenly signs, these were exactly the same symbolisms used in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zephaniah, etc. when a nation was going to be destroyed, either by the Egyptians, Assyrians, or Babylonians... When they were being used in the New Testament, it was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the nation of Israel and her leadership by the Romans and the removal of her covenant relationship with God.

Yes, these symbolisms were used in the OT. However the verse is talking about the entire earth, not just the destruction of Israel.

Luk 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
Luk 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

If you choose to bash me and call me a heretic, so be it.

I’m not into name calling. I can distinguish between the message and the messenger. I am saying that preterism is a dangerous and highly erroneous doctrine.


Ed

 

[eschatologist]

Ed Jones

Many believe it was Festus the terrible Roman procurator of Jerusalem who was considered instrumental in starting the Jewish revolt. He imposed hard taxes upon the Jews and had the Temple treasury raided to support his lavish lifestyle. He was brutal in dealing with the Jews, which caused them to eventually revolt. There was also the beast that came up from the earth(Jewish nation). There are also a couple of people that are indicated here. A very good read for you to help in your understanding would be to read the wars by Josephus.

What I am saying is that the cross was one of several events that preceded the finalization-- the removal and destruction of the Temple and covenant Judaism. The Hebrew writer proclaimed this:

The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing(Heb.9:8).

It was imperative that the old covenant and Temple system be removed! Then in between these above events you had Pentecost. These were all important New Testament covenantal events. Sure the cross was definitely the most important. But they all needed to come together to make a whole. I can not believe so many people fail to see what was happening concerning the changing of covenants. If I were to label the book of Hebrews I would say it this way-- it was covenants in contrast.

Your comment concerning Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 is absolutely hermenuetically incorrect!!! To say it is "the generation that sees these events" is totally misinterpreting the Greek word 'genea.' There is nowhere in the New Testament(I said N.T. because it is here where the 'koine' Greek is used) where the word 'genea' was used in conjunction with the pronoun 'this' in which it meant some future generation removed from those it was spoken to, nor does it represent a nation or race of people. This is just another side-stepping maneuver that I mentioned in an earlier post that the so called 'experts' are attempting to force feed us. The bell-cow rings, then the others follow. For crying out loud, the exact, and I will repeat, the EXACT same words(this generation) were used(Matt.23:36) just prior to Matthew 24:34!!! See if you can apply your theology in this account and make sense. And unless you are affraid that it just might be possible you could be wrong, go and look through-out the New Testament where "this generation" is used(and even the word generation by itself) and see if you can find an example to the way that you just interpreted it. You either have to believe Jesus was truthful when He made that statement here, or either say he was somehow incorrect, or purposely slicked those people He was speaking to! I know where my faith stands. But many people, just because taking Jesus at His word here does not fit their doctrine or theology, throw the old word-twist and bend to force it to fit into their box of understanding, rather than believe the very Lord that saves them.

If you say that those verse about the earth, stars and sky in the New Testament literally mean the physical earth and heavenly bodies, then you must imply that they mean the same in the Old Testament. If you are not, then tell me what justifies you to 'change' the meanings here?
The New Testament and especially the book of Revelation is FULL of Old Testament symbology and meanings. It was evident what they were about in the Old Testament, for God made it so. So then our Lord would have had to re-define such meanings for the New Testament faithfull(especially since most of these were Jews in the first place) in order for them to correctly discern the meanings and truth. That means somewhere in the New Testament we would find such a re-defining. But there is none, so to be hermeneutically correct, the same allusions and mnd symbolisms must equally apply here. But it is your right, just as anyone else, if you chose to come up with your own meanings. But for your sake I hope that you are correct!

 

[Ed Jones]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
Many believe it was Festus the terrible Roman procurator of Jerusalem who was considered instrumental in starting the Jewish revolt.

Still no mark, no forehead, no hand, no buying nor selling.

What I am saying is that the cross was one of several events that preceded the finalization-- the removal and destruction of the Temple and covenant Judaism. The Hebrew writer proclaimed this: The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing(Heb.9:8).

Just saying the cross of Christ was not sufficient to establish the new covenant should be a MAJOR cause of concern for any believer. How was the way into the Most Holy Place was not disclosed when the veil of the temple was torn from the top to the bottom when Jesus died? (Mt 27:51, Mk 15:38) Everyone, not just the high priest, could see into it after it was torn.

What was Paul talking about when we wrote:

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Broken down. Abolished. Reconciled. All past tense. All written before 70AD.

Your comment concerning Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32 is absolutely hermenuetically incorrect!!! ...For crying out loud, the exact, and I will repeat, the EXACT same words(this generation) were used(Matt.23:36) just prior to Matthew 24:34!!!

Again, this is a word for word interpretation without accounting for the context. In Matt 23, He was talking to the religious leaders of that day. In Matt 24, He was talking prophetically about future end time events.

I'm no scholar, but I have read a few things. The most accepted method of hermeneutics is the Grammatical-Historical method. Here every interpretation must fit both grammatically in the context of the passage and historically in setting of the writers. Since the context of Matt 24 is a discussion about future events, to conclude that the words "this generation" is also talking about a future generation is completely justified.

If you say that those verse about the earth, stars and sky in the New Testament literally mean the physical earth and heavenly bodies, then you must imply that they mean the same in the Old Testament. If you are not, then tell me what justifies you to 'change' the meanings here?

Context, Context, Context. Even before consistency of symbolic interpretation, all interpretation must first be based on the context of the passage. In Matt 24, Jesus is talking global events. Verse 7 “nation shall rise against nation”. Verse 14 “shall be preached in all the world”. Verse 22 “there should no flesh be saved”. Verse 30 “all the tribes of the earth mourn”.

It's really very simple. If I were to say "Jane is cold". Jane could be physically cold, she could be ruthless or she could be introverted. It depends of the context what I am saying.

So unless you interpret Scripture first within the context of the passages they are located, errors will abound... as this preterist position has clearly demonstrated.


Ed

 

[Optamill]

Some Full Preterist beliefs:

1. All biblical prophecies from Genesis to Revelation have been fulfilled.
2. All books of the Bible were written before 70 A.D.
3. The millennium of Revelation 20 occurred between Christ's ascension and the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. or (a minority viewpoint), between the ascension and the end of the Bar Kochba revolt (135 A.D.).
4. We are now living in the new heaven and new earth.
5. There is now no longer "any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."
6. Satan has been cast into the lake of fire.

Anyone who is a premillennialist, an amillennialist, or a postmillennialist is ipso facto not a full preterist.