PARTIAL preterism is the view that almost all Biblical prophecy is past (excluding the The Second Coming, The Resurrection and The Judgment).
It refers to that wide spectrum of thought which is not fully Futurist, but which incorporates some portion of what the Futurist view has to offer. Some, but not all, prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of the Jewish nation in A.D. 70. The "big three" prophecies are yet future - the Great Judgment, Resurrection and Second Coming of Christ.
These events are yet future:
The coming (parousia) of Christ
The day of the Lord
The resurrection of the dead
The rapture of the living
The (final) judgment
The end of history
Complete or Full Preterism is "2. (Theol.) One who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled. --Farrar."
Full Preterists do not believe in a rapture to come, whereas Partial Preterists do believe in a rapture. Both parties agree that Matthew 24 was totally fulfilled, though. The scriptures in Matthew 24 that have been taken to speak about the rapture are misapplied references to the rapture. The true rapture references are in 1 Corinthians 15, and other places.
Preterism states that some of the references to the coming of the Son of Man do not refer to the rapture, but rather to a judgment that occurred in 70 AD.
Preterists believe the following verses literally:
Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Thanks for the quick summary. Interesting. I'm never fond of sounding like a complete idiot (I know the smart remarks that can be said about that) but I'm not familiar, at all, with this.
So Mike, in the showdown between the partial folks and the full folks, which one is correct and why?
No. When Christ said this generation shall not pass he was about 30 years old and the time was about 30 AD. One (40 year) generation from 30 AD was 70 AD. You are trying to say he meant HIS generation which would have started at his birth. That is not what he said. He said THIS generation.
Exactly. He meant the generation alive when He spoke those words... the people standing there hearing him. THEIR generation.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Thanks for the quick summary. Interesting. I'm never fond of sounding like a complete idiot (I know the smart remarks that can be said about that) but I'm not familiar, at all, with this.
So Mike, in the showdown between the partial folks and the full folks, which one is correct and why?
Whichever one Mike is. Duh.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Thanks for the quick summary. Interesting. I'm never fond of sounding like a complete idiot (I know the smart remarks that can be said about that) but I'm not familiar, at all, with this.
So Mike, in the showdown between the partial folks and the full folks, which one is correct and why?
I believe PARTIAL preterism because there are too many plain statements in the New Testament about an actual physical resurrection of our bodies in Phil 3:21 and 1 Cor 15, for us to believe this is not going to happen. Full preterists are great folks and very sincere, but their thoughts that ALL prophecy occurred in AD70 cannot be true in light of the fact that no one physically resurrected then. So they have to reinterpret 1 Cor 15 to be speaking of a NON-physical resurrection that happens everytime someone dies, instead of a visible Physical resurrection like Jesus experienced.
Also, if full preterism were correct, satan will never be removed from the world and sinners will forever be born, and the cross will never have wiped out the sin that Adam brought into the world. To me, it makes the cross look weaker than Adam's sin. But that is MY opinion. Maybe I am missing something, though.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
I totally disagree. Something else we disagree on I guess.
God does not give prophecies for us to not be able to understand them. People DO have the answers, but so much tradition and personal agenda in making money by prophecy ministries disallows others from being honest enough to allow God to reveal it to them.
While we need to be ready either way, a huge percentage of the Bible is prophecy, and I do not think God wasted our time with writing things we can never know. If it's in the Bible, he wants us to know it. If we do not know it, He wants us to prayerfully study it to know it. Simple as that.
Well, I'm not gonna fight you much on this one. I don't mean to be disrespectful or irreverent, but I just don't see why any of this matters. I tend to take on the Timmy attitude with this stuff, which is......why in the world is this SO unclear?? I know that you're convinced, Mike, that you have this totally figured out, but so is EB, so is Baxter, so is the dude on TBN (can't remember his name), so are the people that know for sure that the rapture happens before the trib, or during the trib, or after the trib, so are the people that don't believe there's a literal rapture, so are the people who say, "The word rapture isn't in the bible", so are the people who believe the trib is 14 years, not 7, as SG Norris taught in his latter days.......
You're a smart guy and you've got your position down, but so does Richard Heard and his red heifers, and so does my bible school teacher.
And then there's people like me, who sit back and watch all of you beat each other senseless about it, kinda chuckle and say, "Someday we'll see who's right."
I do know n.o.w. is a bit of an intentional rebel, too. If something is against the norm among Pentecost, n.o.w. likes to associate with it for that reason.
I know there's no way for me to prove it to you, but I've never intentionally rebelled against anything, just for the sake of being different....cross my heart, hope to die. I understand how I give the impression, though.
I believe PARTIAL preterism because there are too many plain statements in the New Testament about an actual physical resurrection of our bodies in Phil 3:21 and 1 Cor 15, for us to believe this is not going to happen. Full preterists are great folks and very sincere, but their thoughts that ALL prophecy occurred in AD70 cannot be true in light of the fact that no one physically resurrected then. So they have to reinterpret 1 Cor 15 to be speaking of a NON-physical resurrection that happens everytime someone dies, instead of a visible Physical resurrection like Jesus experienced.
Also, if full preterism were correct, satan will never be removed from the world and sinners will forever be born, and the cross will never have wiped out the sin that Adam brought into the world. To me, it makes the cross look weaker than Adam's sin. But that is MY opinion. Maybe I am missing something, though.
Ok, I'm with you, here. I CO seems pretty clear. Do the "Full" folks believe that resurrections took place in 70AD or do the allegorize I CO 15?
Well, I'm not gonna fight you much on this one. I don't mean to be disrespectful or irreverent, but I just don't see why any of this matters. I tend to take on the Timmy attitude with this stuff, which is......why in the world is this SO unclear?? I know that you're convinced, Mike, that you have this totally figured out, but so is EB, so is Baxter, so is the dude on TBN
I do not have it totally figured out, for sure. But I do have a general idea, I believe.
It is unclear because of the reasons I gave, in my opinion.
I came across quote an explanation of why I think people fight and are so strong about their ideas in prophecy. I saw more people fight over prophecy than anything else. I think I know why.
Someone explained that many believers try to find their identities in something other than Christ, the proper way, and seek to impress PEOPLE rather than God. When we find our identities in Christ, we seek to impress GOD and not people. But anything else messes us up.
For example, prophecy seems to be an issue that has a reputation of being more mystical and mystifying and spiritual than anything else. But I think the carnal mind thinks it is like that. And since VISIONS and PROPHECIES seems so impossible to understand and how usually people think one has to be a spiritual guru or giant of mystical things to be able to understand it, people want to be that in order to impress others. So, they strive to get their view across to others so as to impress these others with what the presenters are convinced impresses people. In reality, they do not want to show truth so the people are impressed with God, but are impressed with the presenters.
By getting people impressed, the presenter feels better about themselves and their insecurity is removed. But when the other person disagree with the doctrine, that person has just removed the presenters' means of identity and security. So the presenter takes it personally as though the other is saying they have no identity and feel insecure again. So a fight ensues. lol
Quote:
(can't remember his name), so are the people that know for sure that the rapture happens before the trib, or during the trib, or after the trib, so are the people that don't believe there's a literal rapture, so are the people who say, "The word rapture isn't in the bible", so are the people who believe the trib is 14 years, not 7, as SG Norris taught in his latter days.......
You're a smart guy and you've got your position down, but so does Richard Heard and his red heifers, and so does my bible school teacher.
And then there's people like me, who sit back and watch all of you beat each other senseless about it, kinda chuckle and say, "Someday we'll see who's right."
Can you see where I'm coming from?
I can see very well where you are coming from and I like your refusal to be someone who knows it all about prophecy. However, I do not think I know it all about prophecy either. And I only recommend you to reconsider this and think that God DOES want us to know about these things, since He took so much time in inspiring his writers to put it in the bible. And there is a good understanding to be had if we can keep away from all the claptrap you quite adequately described, which I think was inspired by the explanation I gave about people wanting to vaunt themselves up.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and think no one can truly know Revelation, because of a turn-off we've both seen in those who want to IMPRESS OTHERS.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Ok, I'm with you, here. I CO seems pretty clear. Do the "Full" folks believe that resurrections took place in 70AD or do the allegorize I CO 15?
They believe souls slept until AD70, and at that time an invisible resurrection occurred, and ever since then an invisible and non-physical resurrection occurs every time a believer dies. It happened all at once in AD70 since everyone slept in graves until then. But since then, they believe each believer rises on an individual basis when he/she dies. And the body is left forever in the ground to never rise again.
They do not allegorize 1 Cor 15, but they interpret it differently to fit with a resurrection at AD70 but yet invisible, because they have to do that if they say this was AD70. Since no one physically arose then, for it would have been plainly evident, then they realize 1 Cor 15 MUST TEACH an invisible resurrection.
In my opinion, and this is just me, I think they are fitting what 1 Cor 15 into other passages that i believe they misinterpreted, as though Jesus said EVERYTHING ever prophesied had to occur by the time of AD70. Since Jesus used second person personal pronouns to the people who heard Him teach Matt 24, and they (as well as myself) feels that means those actual people would see the events listed there, everytime a first or second person personal pronoun is mentioned it has to include ONLY those people who wrote as well as the others alive then. Therefore, they take 1 Thess 4:14-18 as ONLY involving the people alive at that time. I think that rule of person pronouns does not work all the time, though. 2 Cor 5 uses them and fp's believe it includes us today!
Anyway, my assessment.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
But I do have a general idea, I believe. 
Linear Mode
