Featured Understanding Preterism

Full Preterism means ALL has been fulfilled - every scripture in both Old an New testaments.

HankD

 

The book your reading explains it quite well. Amill and post mill can both hold to preterist interpretations of prophetic texts such as the Olivet Discourse.

 

Haven't read it, but try Gary DeMar's "Last Days madness", I think you'll find it very helpful. It is the book that changed my eschatology.

 

Hello Hank!

I would disagree here. There are full preterists, like Russell (of "Parousia" fame - not the JW) who believe, for instance, what the seven thunders in Revelation has yet to happen. There is also the fact that some of Scripture describes events after the death of individual believers. If the believer is still alive - as you and I are -then, necessarily, those verses that speak of personal events and realities after our deaths are still future.

Some full preterists do believe in all things - personal events included - have already happened, but I believe they are mistaken.

 

Tom! glad to hear from you!
I hope all is well with you and yours. Hope all is well in China if you are still there.
OK - Sure, preterism is like very other "ism" - several flavors, some like vanilla, some like chocolate, strawberry, pistachio, etc...

HankD

 

Yes,

I am still in China. Actually I had been away for about two months (US, Cambodia, Taiwan) but am now back in the land of the great firewall. With the upcoming National People's Congress in the next few days and weeks internet seems to be even more spotty than usual. Or maybe it is just my neck of the woods.

I'm willing to accept the above conclusion about preterism without further elaboration. I just didn't want it to be too broadly lumped together.

I hope you and your family are doing fine as well!

 

In my experience the most profound 'preterist book' has been 'The Works Of Josephus', particularly the 'Wars of the Jews' and the last sections of 'Antiquities of the Jews'. He was eye witness to the fulfillment of a ton of 'end times' prophecy.

 

I thought it was good. I urged my wife to read it, if that is any kind of gauge of my endorsement.

 

Thanks Tom.

HankD

 

I don't know what he claims to be. I liked his book though.

 

He only mentions the 1 word time (as far as I can tell) in a foot note on pg. 269. He said,

Preterism... is the view that biblical prophecy, to varying degrees, has already been fulfilled. No orthodox preterist holds that the second coming of Christ or the resurrection of the dead has already ocurred. LaHaye's assertion that I believe Jesus returned in AD 68, with the implication that I believe the resurrection has occurred, wrongly associates me with the heretical form of preterism.

Formidable defenses of orthodox preterism includes Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus, DeMar, Last Days Madness...
​

So I suspect he would put himself in the "orthodox preterism" camp, whatever that is. In other words, partial preterist.

 

When it comes to "last days" prophecy, there is a spectrum of beliefs in what has or has not been fulfilled. It is getting to the place were everyone has their own valued opinion. Mine is what is most important.

There are some that place a great deal of events in the unfulfilled and some that place all events in the fulfilled.

The broad titles of pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil is an example of that spectrum. So is there a broad spectrum of partial to that of full preterist.

One can actually be a historical pre-mil and hold to some areas of agreement with the partial preterist thinking, just as the a-mil and post-mil would agree more kindly with the full preterist thinking.

What actually separates dispensational and pre-mil folks from partial and full preterist views is how literally one takes the Sciptures concerning the gathering of Israel into a nation, the battle of Armegedon, and Millenium. The preterist folks (both full and partial) generally reject any literal interpretations having to do with these events or assign them as applying to some other matters than what the dispensational and pre-mil folks assign.


For example: In the "Olivet discourse" if one follows the Lord's statements, they cannot help but understand that, as the disciples were leaving the temple and remarked to Christ about the magnitude of the building, He spoke most certainly about the destruction that was going to come to that place.

Then as they sat at the Mount of Olives they ask of three separate events:

1) When will these things be
2) What will be the signs of your coming
3) What will be the signs of the end of the age​

The preterest (full) hold that all prophecies are complete and no more need to look for some fulfillment. They generally consider that God's covenant with the national Israel is severed and there is no promise given of a national restoration and general salvation of that people. This aligns with much of the church teachings from the time of Augustine on to today.

The preterest (partial in various manners) hold that more closely to pre-mil and dispensation. That there is prophecy of the discourse that were definitive to be complete at 70 ad, and others yet to be fulfilled, and that the coming of Christ (resurections) is not a singular event but a series of comings that will culminate in a final "end of the age" return.

In discussions with partial preterist folks, it is at times rather difficult to mark out their differences from that of a historic pre-mil, and (imo) there is far to much made of nuance differences and one holding on to a title just to be different.

No doubt some of the discourse statements are fulfilled.

No doubt some are yet to be fulfilled.

No doubt Christ is coming in the flesh just as he left in the flesh.

No doubt that the one tool of the enemy of believers is to create doubt, and one of those doubts will and has been over the manner and the prophecies concerning His return. It is a wise servant who will discern the Scriptures with the understanding and hope of God in their hearts.

As John records at the end of his life, "Even so, Come, Lord Jesus."

But then perhaps His return is just allegorical hyperbole and is actually walking among us right now or has already come and we're all just left behind - which was what Paul had to address.

Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?​

The question is: Does this statement by Paul need to be ignored as fulfilled?
To answer it, one must contend with:

Did the temple of Jerusalem represent apostasy?
Did Titus represent the "son of destruction" and was Capta "revealed" as the man of lawlessness?
Did Titus exalt himself sit in the temple while it was being destroyed, after it was destroyed, before it was destroyed? ​

For me, Titus and Capta just don't compare to what Paul is pointing out. The apostasy is not the old Israeli worship, that was no different that the problems from Eli's day. The apostasy is the church. Therefore, the following words by Paul must contend with something more future than that of 70 ad.

Some will disagree, but in my opinion I am unanimous in it.

 

Duly noted agedman.


HankD

 

preterism would see that the second coming happened in AD 70, in the sense that the jewish covenant was destroyed, and that God established a new One, and that caused us to be right now in new heavens and earth age!

Denies physical bodily resurrection, and second coming as the church has held it to be from the start...

Post Mils holds that the Gospel/Church shall conver tand bring all areas on earth under domain of jesus, and then he can return, Off shoot of that would be reconstructionism and kingdom Now, as both would see the manadate of the church to establish God over all aspects of culture and society right here and now...

A Mils would see Jesus as reigning in a real sense since His ascension, and that he will return to usher in eternal state of Kingdom at end of this age...

Historical pre mil tends to see second coming as post tribulation, and that Jesus ushers in 1000 years of His peace on Earth, but no speacial place for national isreal in that plan...

 

What you wrote about us is basically true, but the above needs clarification. We do not deny physical bodily resurrection of Christ. As Paul wrote in Corinthians it is a necessity of the Christian faith.

But we do not believe in our physical bodily resurrection, nor that Christ is now - post-ascension - in physical bodily form. There are several good Biblical reasons why Christ could not be in physical form right now.

 

Ah, Tom, Tom my dear brother what will you do as we both rise into the air to meet Him at His coming.
Don't worry I won't rub it in

HankD