Partial preterism

[kyredneck]

Anything that denies a future, literal, and physical return of Christ is heresy.

Do you deny this 'coming'?:

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

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

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

3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
27 For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Mt 24

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26

Those given over to the Dispensational heresy deny these and a myriad of other scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

"I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell's important work." R.C. Sproul
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia.html

One of the worst books on bilcal prophecy!

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you deny this 'coming'?:

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

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

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

3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
27 For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man. Mt 24

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26

Those given over to the Dispensational heresy deny these and a myriad of other scriptures.

I deny tha te second coming happened yet, as we still are not resurrected and glorified!

 

[Iconoclast]

Y1,

prophect, woul dihherence partia alwys anntchrist bilcal tha te

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Iconoclast]

One of the worst books on bilcal prophecy!

Did you read this book?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Y1,


Thanks for clarifying

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Anyone on this board hold to partial preterism and what are your arguments?

I don't regard myself as any sort of preterist, but it's impossible not to see some of our Lord's Olivet Discourse as having bearing on AD 70. The disciples asked Him three questions in Matthew 24:3, and it would be strange if He didn't answer all of them.

In brief, there are 'all these things,' panta tauta (vs. 33, 34), of which there will be signs, and before the coming of which the generation then living would not pass away. There is also a 'that day,' tes hemeras ekeines (v.36) of which no one knows, and which will come without signs or warning like a thief in the night (v.43; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3) and for which we are to be in a perpetual state of readiness (Matthew 24:42-44; 25:13). The fact is that there were signs before the destruction of Jerusalem, and Church history tells us that the Christians did indeed obey our Lord's word in Matthew 24:16 and flee. But the fall of Babylon took place in a single day (Daniel 5:30-31, corroborated by the Greek historian Herodotus; Revelation 18:8), and so the Return of the Lord Jesus will be a sudden event which will take the world by utter surprise.

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

To go through all the cities (Gk. polis, a large walled settlement) of Israel would certainly not have taken 40 years or anything like it. There are two possible interpretations of Matt. 10:23: it could simply mean that the Apostles would not have finished going through these towns before the risen Christ would come to them with new instruction (compare Matthew 10:5-6 with Matthew 28:19). Or if we interpret 'Israel' as being any city where God's elect dwell, it would simply be a gloss on Matthew 24:14.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't regard myself as any sort of preterist, but it's impossible not to see some of our Lord's Olivet Discourse as having bearing on AD 70. The disciples asked Him three questions in Matthew 24:3, and it would be strange if He didn't answer all of them.

In brief, there are 'all these things,' panta tauta (vs. 33, 34), of which there will be signs, and before the coming of which the generation then living would not pass away. There is also a 'that day,' tes hemeras ekeines (v.36) of which no one knows, and which will come without signs or warning like a thief in the night (v.43; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3) and for which we are to be in a perpetual state of readiness (Matthew 24:42-44; 25:13). The fact is that there were signs before the destruction of Jerusalem, and Church history tells us that the Christians did indeed obey our Lord's word in Matthew 24:16 and flee. But the fall of Babylon took place in a single day (Daniel 5:30-31, corroborated by the Greek historian Herodotus; Revelation 18:8), and so the Return of the Lord Jesus will be a sudden event which will take the world by utter surprise.


To go through all the cities (Gk. polis, a large walled settlement) of Israel would certainly not have taken 40 years or anything like it. There are two possible interpretations of Matt. 10:23: it could simply mean that the Apostles would not have finished going through these towns before the risen Christ would come to them with new instruction (compare Matthew 10:5-6 with Matthew 28:19). Or if we interpret 'Israel' as being any city where God's elect dwell, it would simply be a gloss on Matthew 24:14.

Some applied to the time of Christ, othjers yet to happen, as te big problerm with pretierism is that it makes the second coming past event, and deny physical resurrection. Big problems with partial viewpoint is have to disregad history and force scriptures to be totally allogorical/spirualized!

 

[Yeshua1]

Y1,


Thanks for clarifying

Did you read this book?

No, have you?

Are you still partial to post mil view?

 

[Baptist Brother]

Eschatology is a heavily complex and debated field of study perhaps the most complex in all of theology. I am a dispensationalist and a pre triber. However this is not to say that those that disagree with me are wrong in all areas. After having read half of RC Sprouls book "the last days according to Jesus" I am more open to the possibility that I could be wrong in my eschatology. Some posters would dismiss the entire arguments of those that are partial preterists but I disagree with this. Anyone on this board hold to partial preterism and what are your arguments?

Revelation and the Olivet Discourse were someplace between esoteric and nonsense until I looked at them from a Preterist perspective. Now, they are clear and simple for me to understand. Beautiful and Divine!

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Dispenationalist commentaries now look to me as something between nonsense and satanism. It doesn't matter the verse. Dispenationalism turns the Bible into random assemblages of verses that gain no meaning from context, but only have meaning discernible from certain preachers, especially Pentecostal TV evangelists.

Jesus' prophesy of the destruction of the Temple in the first century, in Dispenationalism, is just randomly inserted in scripture, unconnected to the rest of the Olivet Discourse. Or, if it's not randomly inserted, then the words "look... see... these" doesn't mean what they're looking at, what they see, or these building in their presence. Then, there's the historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in the manner and timing Jesus said. Why would any Christian have a problem with that?

 

[Iconoclast]

No, have you?

Are you still partial to post mil view?

Yes...I am forced to view the postmill view as probable....Hebrews2 :4-8

I have not read that book yet,....you said it was really bad...what exactly was bad about it?

 

[Baptist Brother]

I don't regard myself as any sort of preterist, but it's impossible not to see some of our Lord's Olivet Discourse as having bearing on AD 70. The disciples asked Him three questions in Matthew 24:3, and it would be strange if He didn't answer all of them. [Jesus did answer all three questions, the answer just doesn't fit Dispensationalist theology. The Disciples asking these three things in one sentence, right after Jesus spoke of the destruction of the Temple, shows the Disciples thought all three things were closely related.]

In brief, there are 'all these things,' panta tauta (vs. 33, 34) [Wouldn't all things include the destruction of the Temple they were looking at, at well as what Jesus continued to speak about?], of which there will be signs, and before the coming of which the generation [You're inserting 'coming'. Jesus said nothing about a coming generation] then living would not pass away. There is also a 'that day,' tes hemeras ekeines (v.36) of which no one knows [Jesus said no man knows the day or hour, but Jesus revealed the generation.], and which will come without signs or warning like a thief in the night (v.43; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 3:3) [For this reply, I'm sticking to Matthew 24] and for which we are to be in a perpetual state of readiness (Matthew 24:42-44; 25:13) [You can't be ready when you're dead, the disciples Jesus was talking to are dead] would come . The fact is that there were signs before the destruction of Jerusalem, and Church history tells us that the Christians did indeed obey our Lord's word in Matthew 24:16 and flee [Jesus labeled what they did eventually flee from as the "great tribulation"]. But the fall of Babylon took place in a single day (Daniel 5:30-31, corroborated by the Greek historian Herodotus; Revelation 18:8), and so the Return of the Lord Jesus will be a sudden event which will take the world by utter surprise.

It's almost effortless to refute the Dispensationalist interpretation of their own verse proofs.

To go through all the cities (Gk. polis, a large walled settlement) of Israel would certainly not have taken 40 years or anything like it. There are two possible interpretations of Matt. 10:23: it could simply mean that the Apostles would not have finished going through these towns before the risen Christ would come to them with new instruction (compare Matthew 10:5-6 with Matthew 28:19). Or if we interpret 'Israel' as being any city where God's elect dwell, it would simply be a gloss on Matthew 24:14.

If the Apostles didn't need 40 years, they wouldn't have needed 2000 years (ignoring that they're now all dead) to go through all the cities of Israel. The argument that Jesus would only "come" with new instructions ignores the context of the verse, and is simply another example of how Dispensationalists rip verses out of context and assign random meanings to them, to get the verses to fit into their theology. Also, Jesus came to them with new instructions soon after the Resurrection, even before they attempted to go through the cities of Israel. Jesus came again to Paul with new instructions.

It's not gloss to take "Israel" to mean the diaspora. If Jesus meant Judea, he would have said Judea. It's most reasonable under Preterist interpretation that the Apostles were on a mission to reach all the Jewish communities before the destruction of the Temple. Under Dispensationalism, Jesus' statement is reduced to just another pointless and random comment by Jesus.

Dispenationalism is glaringly unbiblical. People don't get Dispenstaionalism from the Bible. They impose it on the Bible.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's almost effortless to refute the Dispensationalist interpretation of their own verse proofs

Perhaps it is, but I am not a Dispensationalist and never have been.

 

[Yeshua1]

Revelation and the Olivet Discourse were someplace between esoteric and nonsense until I looked at them from a Preterist perspective. Now, they are clear and simple for me to understand. Beautiful and Divine!

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?”

Dispenationalist commentaries now look to me as something between nonsense and satanism. It doesn't matter the verse. Dispenationalism turns the Bible into random assemblages of verses that gain no meaning from context, but only have meaning discernible from certain preachers, especially Pentecostal TV evangelists.

Jesus' prophesy of the destruction of the Temple in the first century, in Dispenationalism, is just randomly inserted in scripture, unconnected to the rest of the Olivet Discourse. Or, if it's not randomly inserted, then the words "look... see... these" doesn't mean what they're looking at, what they see, or these building in their presence. Then, there's the historical fact that the Temple was destroyed in the manner and timing Jesus said. Why would any Christian have a problem with that?

When was the Second Coming event there in history?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes...I am forced to view the postmill view as probable....Hebrews2 :4-8

I have not read that book yet,....you said it was really bad...what exactly was bad about it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Main problem is that one has to spiritualize all of the prophetic elemnts of the Biblet to get there!

 

[Yeshua1]

It's almost effortless to refute the Dispensationalist interpretation of their own verse proofs.



If the Apostles didn't need 40 years, they wouldn't have needed 2000 years (ignoring that they're now all dead) to go through all the cities of Israel. The argument that Jesus would only "come" with new instructions ignores the context of the verse, and is simply another example of how Dispensationalists rip verses out of context and assign random meanings to them, to get the verses to fit into their theology. Also, Jesus came to them with new instructions soon after the Resurrection, even before they attempted to go through the cities of Israel. Jesus came again to Paul with new instructions.

It's not gloss to take "Israel" to mean the diaspora. If Jesus meant Judea, he would have said Judea. It's most reasonable under Preterist interpretation that the Apostles were on a mission to reach all the Jewish communities before the destruction of the Temple. Under Dispensationalism, Jesus' statement is reduced to just another pointless and random comment by Jesus.

Dispenationalism is glaringly unbiblical. People don't get Dispenstaionalism from the Bible. They impose it on the Bible.

The same would apply to Pretierism though, and still think that God calls Israel and Church as seperate entites in the NT, Church did not replace Israel...
And even a calvinist/Reformed liek Spurgeon and others saw God still had dealings with national israel in end of days...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If the Apostles didn't need 40 years, they wouldn't have needed 2000 years (ignoring that they're now all dead) to go through all the cities of Israel.

Israel in our Lord's time on earth, was, as it is now a very small country. Matthew 10:11 speaks of cities (Gk. polis] and towns [Gk. kome ]. The former was a larger settlement with a wall; the latter a smaller unwalled place. The Apostles could have got around all the cities in a year or two. However, if He meant the cities where God's elect dwell, we still haven't managed it yet. Not much Christian ministry in Mogadishu, Mecca or Kabul.

The argument that Jesus would only "come" with new instructions ignores the context of the verse, and is simply another example of how Dispensationalists rip verses out of context and assign random meanings to them, to get the verses to fit into their theology.

How does it ignore the context? In Matthew 10:5 they were told specifically not to go to a Gentile city or to Samaria, so that blows your idea of the Jewish diaspora out of the water. And Jesus really did come to them in Matthew 28. There is no record of any appearance by Him in AD 70. If He came, no one saw Him (contra Mark 14:62; Acts 1:11; Revelation 1:8). This idea of an 'invisible appearance' is not only a tautology, but rather similar to the Dispensational idea of the Rapture.

.Also, Jesus came to them with new instructions soon after the Resurrection, even before they attempted to go through the cities of Israel. Jesus came again to Paul with new instructions.

They were going through the cities of Israel well before the Resurrection; surely they obeyed the instructions of our Lord (Luke 9:6).

It's not gloss to take "Israel" to mean the diaspora. If Jesus meant Judea, he would have said Judea.

Not in Matt. 10 it's not!

It's most reasonable under Preterist interpretation that the Apostles were on a mission to reach all the Jewish communities before the destruction of the Temple.

That is not interpretation; it's the very imposition on the Bible of which you accuse Dispensationalists. Where does Peter or Paul say this in their letters? Why is the writer to the Hebrews so relaxed about it?

Under Dispensationalism, Jesus' statement is reduced to just another pointless and random comment by Jesus.

Not at all! Another pointless comment by Jesus ? How many do you think there are? Our Lord was telling the 12 that their assignment was only a temporary one.

Dispenationalism is glaringly unbiblical. People don't get Dispensationalism from the Bible. They impose it on the Bible.

I am not Dispensationalist, and neither is my church. However, we welcome into church membership anyone who believes in a future physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory (so long as they will put up with Amillennialism being taught from the pulpit).

 

[Baptist Brother]

The same would apply to Pretierism though, and still think that God calls Israel and Church as seperate entites in the NT, Church did not replace Israel...
And even a calvinist/Reformed liek Spurgeon and others saw God still had dealings with national israel in end of days...

God has only one people, Jews and Gentiles in Christ. God doesn't have two peoples. One Body. One Tree to which we're attached. Most of Christ's parables are about the Kingdom being taken out of the hands of Jews and given to Gentiles.

 

[Baptist Brother]

Do you deny this 'coming'?:

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

I would applaud your post, but demonstrating Christ's first-century coming is simple.

It's simple to lead a horse to water. But, making the horse drink is another thing.