Full Preterism - Knee Jerk Reaction

[Gilligan]

I believe full preterism is a knee jerk reaction to the failed predictions that the Second Coming would occur by 1988, which led to disillusionment when it didn't happen. Hal Lindsey, Southwest Radio Church, and others speculated that that would be the time. They based that on a forty year generation beginning in 1948 (Matthew 24:32-34). Some subtracted seven years for the Tribulation and thought the Rapture would occur in 1981. I know this because I was a futurist in the late 1970s and all the 1980s and converted to full preterist in the early 1990s, and as a result I was backslidden for several years. I now consider myself a partial preterist regarding the Olivet Discourse, and consider full preterism to be a very dangerous doctrine because it destroys the Blessed Hope and gives no incentive to be watchful and live holy. As to the book of Revelation, the historicist view seems to be the most sane position.

I also believe all the date setting and Tribulation speculations have set the stage depicted in II Peter 3:3-4.

[christseeker]

I agree, once I learned that dispensationalism was as new invention and lie I overreacted for an hour and became a full preterist and upon some research switched to partial and now I call myself 2/3 rds preterist and I believe Revelation to be symbolic and code not about our future

[MoreMercy]

I believe full preterism is a knee jerk reaction to the failed predictions that the Second Coming would occur by 1988, which led to disillusionment when it didn't happen. Hal Lindsey, Southwest Radio Church, and others speculated that that would be the time. They based that on a forty year generation beginning in 1948 (Matthew 24:32-34). Some subtracted seven years for the Tribulation and thought the Rapture would occur in 1981. I know this because I was a futurist in the late 1970s and all the 1980s and converted to full preterist in the early 1990s, and as a result I was backslidden for several years. I now consider myself a partial preterist regarding the Olivet Discourse, and consider full preterism to be a very dangerous doctrine because it destroys the Blessed Hope and gives no incentive to be watchful and live holy. As to the book of Revelation, the historicist view seems to be the most sane position.

I also believe all the date setting and Tribulation speculations have set the stage depicted in II Peter 3:3-4.

Howdy Gilligan and Howdy christseeker

I know this is the End Times Chat board of the forums.
And, I want you to know that I am not posting this to portray anyone as imature in the light and truth of Christ Jesus, but only desire to share with you and others reading here, how I see the book of revelation as food and drink for myself.

I was living in Beaufort South Carolina when Hal Lindsey's movie "the late great planet earth" came out, I watched it, it scared the bejeebers out of me !
As time went by I came to see that Hal did not know as much as he presented him self as knowing, he was not and is not a prophet. (by our bibles own description)

But as for: futurist, full preterist, partial preterist, full preterism and even Olivet Discourse: I am not at all familiar with those terms or descriptions.

As for: the book of revelation, the name of the book is my first clue... "revelation" = revealing

As for: me understanding the book of revelation, I think I should know all I possibly can about the truth and light of Christ before I try to digest that book, or try to put that book in a box labeled future or historical.

Father says that He will regenerate me into Christ-likeness, Christ says He is a gentle man with a humble spirit, well I know I am not a gentile man nor have a humble spirit yet, so that to me is evidence that I have not finished that regeneration yet.
And, also evidence that I need to learn more of the truth and light of my Master Christ Jesus before I venture into revelation for meat or drink.
If reading the book of Revelations scared me then and still confuses me now, then I am still lacking a very big portion of the truth and light of the Master Christ Jesus, for there is no fear or confusion in Him.... nor fear or confusion in faith on Him.
That book still confuses me so that is a third witness and evidence that I need more of His truth and light before I will understand what I read in Revelation. Nor should I put that book in a box labeled future or historical.

(please note) :I still go to the book of revealtion as reference to other studies of mine, but do not currently study that book because of my still imature state of Fathers regeneration into His Sons likeness.
Please do not take me as suggesting that I should not study that book, I only suggest I should study Christ unmeasurable truth and light until it spills from me overflowing with that light and truth before studying in that book, or I may possibly harm my self and more importantly harm others and last but not least grieve Fathers Holy Spirit by speaking of things I know not of.

Just my 3 cents.

Father bless

[christseeker]

But who is in revealing to? I take the apporach that it is revealing to whom it was written and that would be the 1st century Christians. I think the reason we have a hard time undersanding it is that the code John used would have been known to them at the time but it was lost to us now.

[MoreMercy]

But who is in revealing to? I take the apporach that it is revealing to whom it was written and that would be the 1st century Christians. I think the reason we have a hard time undersanding it is that the code John used would have been known to them at the time but it was lost to us now.

When Jesus spoke to a mass crowd that we call "the sermon on the mount" who was He speaking too ? should we take that portion of our bibles as an exclusive message to that mass crowd or take it as a message to all of His sheep now/today too?

[christseeker]

When Jesus spoke to a mass crowd that we call "the sermon on the mount" who was He speaking too ? should we take that portion of our bibles as an exclusive message to that mass crowd or take it as a message to all of His sheep now/today too?

He was speaking to them. We can glean lessons from it but in context the sermon was to those there at the time

[MoreMercy]

He was speaking to them. We can glean lessons from it but in context the sermon was to those there at the time

Agreed, thank you... then does your answer to my question moot your first question or not ?

[My heart's Desire]

But who is in revealing to? I take the apporach that it is revealing to whom it was written and that would be the 1st century Christians. I think the reason we have a hard time undersanding it is that the code John used would have been known to them at the time but it was lost to us now.

Which would seem to me amazing in that ONLY 1st Century Christians alone could understand that Christ returns, holds judgments and creates a new heaven and earth and that only they can understand it but we can't since Revelation is written ONLY to them? Amazing.

[christseeker]

Which would seem to me amazing in that ONLY 1st Century Christians alone could understand that Christ returns, holds judgments and creates a new heaven and earth and that only they can understand it but we can't since Revelation is written ONLY to them? Amazing.

Actually I don't believe it is about that at all. It's a book of hope not a book of literalness, I believe it provides hope in the midst of the great tribulation and doesn't predict any future event. It's like if you were going through a tough time and I told you who was doing it and why except I couldn't tell you outright and had to use code or symbolism than I remind you that in the end Christ wins so count it as joy.

I just no longer believe what a lot believe about it, I believe it very symbolic and meant to be an encouragement to the 1st Century believers not about the 21st century or beyond.

[christseeker]

Agreed, thank you... then does your answer to my question moot your first question or not ?

I am not sure I understand

[MoreMercy]

I am not sure I understand

I'm sorry christseeker
I'll try to explain better:

You asked:
But who is in revealing to? I take the apporach that it is revealing to whom it was written and that would be the 1st century Christians. I think the reason we have a hard time undersanding it is that the code John used would have been known to them at the time but it was lost to us now.

I answered with another question:
When Jesus spoke to a mass crowd that we call "the sermon on the mount" who was He speaking too ? should we take that portion of our bibles as an exclusive message to that mass crowd or take it as a message to all of His sheep now/today too ?

Your answer:
He was speaking to them. We can glean lessons from it but in context the sermon was to those there at the time





So the answer to your 1st question, I finally answer with your own answer:
Question:
But who is in revealing to? I take the apporach that it is revealing to whom it was written and that would be the 1st century Christians. I think the reason we have a hard time undersanding it is that the code John used would have been known to them at the time but it was lost to us now.
Answer:
He was speaking to them. We can glean lessons from it but in context the sermon was to those there at the time.

Your answer to my question, answers your 1st question.
Sorry for the confusion.

Father bless.

[christseeker]

I think I see, when I said "Who is he revealing to?" I wasn't asking a question so much as I was giving an answer. I was asking and answer at the same time

[MoreMercy]

I think I see, when I said "Who is he revealing to?" I wasn't asking a question so much as I was giving an answer. I was asking and answer at the same time

Ok good, again sorry for the confusion.

Father blesses.

[My heart's Desire]

Actually I don't believe it is about that at all. It's a book of hope not a book of literalness, I believe it provides hope in the midst of the great tribulation and doesn't predict any future event. It's like if you were going through a tough time and I told you who was doing it and why except I couldn't tell you outright and had to use code or symbolism than I remind you that in the end Christ wins so count it as joy.

I just no longer believe what a lot believe about it, I believe it very symbolic and meant to be an encouragement to the 1st Century believers not about the 21st century or beyond.

As in just saying that Christ will return only to encourage 1st century Christians and not in predicting a real future event?
Indeed it is an encouragement to them and to us, but only symbolic for only 1st century Christians? I think not.

[christseeker]

As in just saying that Christ will return only to encourage 1st century Christians and not in predicting a real future event?
Indeed it is an encouragement to them and to us, but only symbolic for only 1st century Christians? I think not.

I don't believe Revelation to be prophetic at all. I still wait for Christ to come as told in Acts 1