Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Partial Preterism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Partial Preterism

    I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

    "is a form of Christian eschatology that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (and/or the Fall of Rome several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ to earth at an unknown day and hour." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism )

    I've been comfortable with partial preterism, also called orthodox preterism, for a good while now. I was wondering if there were others here who also had an interest in it. Or for that matter, if there were folks here who rejected the idea completely (I'd like to hear why). I read a good deal on preteristsite.com and listened to a good number of lectures and podcasts and sermons from across the net before I came to the position I'm currently at. My own pastor's more of a futurist, but he and I have had really good discussions.


    Looking forward to another good discussion here.
    -- Your ~sister~ in Christ.... a "Kaffinated Kittykat"!!

    ROMANS 5:8. Forgiven. Freed. Humbled. Amazed. Grateful. Relying on Christ.

    Love is not a place to come and go as we please
    It's a house we enter in, then commit to never leave
    So lock the door behind you, and throw away the key
    We'll work it out together, let it bring us to our knees.....
    Warren Barfield




  • #2
    It's funny you should post this as I was just doing searches for discussions on Preterism. Since abandoning Dispensationalism a few months ago I have stayed away from Prophecy and just focused on Theology but now my interest in Prophecy is back and I'm seriously looking at Preterism. So I look forward to this dicussion.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by CoffeeCat View Post
      I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....
      Yes, there are what is termed as "partial preterists" here.

      I come from the historicist side myself, but we all still discuss issues here with much enjoyment.

      Blessings.
      "A text without context is a pretext."

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems to me there are quite a collection of partial preterists here. I am one of them.
        The Matthew Never Knew
        The Knew Kingdom

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi, I too am an orthodox preterist. I have a few sites that deal with the subject for study at http://www.preteristsite.com and http://www.preteristpodcast.com

          I am going through Matthew 24 verse by verse in the podcast, you might enjoy it.

          There are a lot of us out there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CoffeeCat View Post
            I know "full" preterism isn't allowed here, and most Christians find it to be heresy. I also know that quite a few people posting here are probably futurists. Do we have any partial preterists here? ( please check something general like wikipedia if you're not sure what it is.) One main difference between partial and full preterism is that partial preterism....

            "is a form of Christian eschatology that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (and/or the Fall of Rome several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ to earth at an unknown day and hour." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism )

            I've been comfortable with partial preterism, also called orthodox preterism, for a good while now. I was wondering if there were others here who also had an interest in it. Or for that matter, if there were folks here who rejected the idea completely (I'd like to hear why). I read a good deal on preteristsite.com and listened to a good number of lectures and podcasts and sermons from across the net before I came to the position I'm currently at. My own pastor's more of a futurist, but he and I have had really good discussions.


            Looking forward to another good discussion here.
            Whoops sorry Cat, didn't see where you mentioned you were already aware of the resources on my site. Have you checked out the podcast?

            Be wary - most of the podcasts on preterism are all hyperpreterist which is what motivated me to start one.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hey Dee Dee...I visit your site quite a bit! You have some great resources on your site. I am PP myself too...what's the difference between PP and Orthodox preterits anyway? Nice to meet you! I hadn't seen a link there for your postcast though...don't know how I missed that...

              My question is (for everyone that has this view)...is the New Heaven and New Earth literal or spiritual? I haven't gotten that far in my studies yet...thanks.

              (I have alot more questions too by the way...lol) It would be nice if just us holding this view could do our own little study together rather then be in a constant debate with pre-tribbers repeating the same things over and over again...I don't advance my studies much on PP by doing that.

              God bless
              Last edited by Studyin'2Show; May 18th 2008, 12:51 AM. Reason: removing quote from deleted post
              "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi Cat,

                ScottJohnson is a former mod here and part pret. He is a gentleman and a scholar and his posts are worth digging out.

                In my case I respect the research done by preterists concerning the AD70 period. However I prefer to call myself a new-style historicist. I believe that futurism and preterism are at opposite poles and historicism is the balance between the two.

                Cyber
                "Your name and renown
                is the desire of our hearts."
                (Isaiah 26:8)

                Comment


                • #9
                  I am a Preterist.

                  Another user, Romulus, is a full Preterist.

                  what's the difference between PP and Orthodox preterits anyway?
                  They're the same.

                  One group is known by these names: Partial Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Classical Preterism, Moderate Preterism, (and sometimes as an insult) Hypo-preterism.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preteri...tial_Preterism

                  The other group is known as: Full Preterism, Consistent Preterism, (and as insults) Unorthodox Preterism or Hyper-Preterism. (Pantelism is sometimes used as a synonym for the previous names, but in theologic aspects, Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism
                  To This Day

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by markedward View Post
                    I am a Preterist.

                    Another user, Romulus, is a full Preterist.

                    They're the same.

                    One group is known by these names: Partial Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Classical Preterism, Moderate Preterism, (and sometimes as an insult) Hypo-preterism.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preteri...tial_Preterism

                    The other group is known as: Full Preterism, Consistent Preterism, (and as insults) Unorthodox Preterism or Hyper-Preterism. (Pantelism is sometimes used as a synonym for the previous names, but in theologic aspects, Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism
                    Which one do you classify yourself as?

                    Blessings.
                    "A text without context is a pretext."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not a Full Preterist.
                      Not a Pantelist.
                      To This Day

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        In a more general sense, we are all 'partial' preterists. The term preterist, in this context, just means a view that any given prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. Since we all believe that the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled in the 1st Coming of Jesus, we are all 'preterists' in regard to those prophecies.

                        As a category, (orthodox/partial) preterists are those who believe in the past fulfillment of very specific prophecies in the Bible. For instance, the vast majority of those labeled as partial preterists believe the 70 weeks & the Olivet Discourse were fullfilled by the 1st century. I suppose to qualify as a partial preterist, you'd have to believe a certain percentage of biblical prophecies have already been fulfilled in the past. I don't know what the percentage would be though.
                        The Matthew Never Knew
                        The Knew Kingdom

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Moon, I see others have answered your question. As for the podcast, I do post when a new one is up on the what's new portion. Here is an index of the ones already done

                          http://www.preteristsite.com/podcastindex.html

                          Matthew I would take a bit of issue though that we are all "preterists" in some way - I think that is not really a theological way to see it. I wrote on this a while back, that I will repost here (I bolded one important part just for here):

                          http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=156

                          It seems like a great deal that goes on in this orthodox versus heretical eschatological debate hinges upon a war over terminology. That should not be surprising, since positions which do not have historical credibility or have other inherent flaws which would make persons reluctant to consider them off the bat, will often adopt terminology which either paints a better face on the view or cloaks it with the word that has historically “good” meaning so as to, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscate the issue. First off, let me say, that there are many people who have fallen into this trap unwittingly. They don’t realize that they have bought into the language game, or do not realize its importance. I am not trying to read into anyone’s overt intentions here, but rather examine underlying motivations which are common with views that have problems with general acceptance, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, at this point in our culture, it seems backward and intolerant to be opposed to abortion. Therefore, many times, those of us who are opposed to abortion will refer to ourselves as “pro-life.” While that descriptive serves a purpose to a point, the fact is, in terms of this debate, we are very much against abortion. I don’t think that we should shy away from the label of “anti-abortion.” I don’t shy away from the labels of anti-murder, anti-racist, anti-child abused, or any number of things that I’m opposed to on moral grounds. I don’t need to pretend and or act as being against abortion is something that I need to cover in flowery language. Yes of course I am in favor of life, but in this particular case, I am in favor of life by being specifically against abortion. Abortion is the specific referent in the discussion, and that is what I am against. That is one example, though it doesn’t walk on all fours necessarily. I did use it, however, to demonstrate that I recognize the semantical gamemanship even with positions thatat are ones I myself hold.


                          Similarly, the homosexual movement has used the power flowery words to disguise deviant sexual practices. It is not “homosexual”, it is “gay.” I for the most part refuse to use the term “gay.” That word had such a wonderful historical meaning it has now been co-opted to mean something which is an abomination in the sight of God. I will not be a party to that.
                          So bringing us back to the eschatological discussion, sometimes hyperpreterists, and well-meaning non-hyperpreterists, will say that those of my eschatological persuasion (sometimes it even happens with those who are of my own eschatological persuasion) are simply a variant of futurist. This is boldly historically inaccurate and nonsensical. One cannot be considered a futurist simply because they believe that the physical, bodily return of Christ and the physical, bodily resurrection are future. This discussion is framed with an historical Christian context. ALL CHRISTIANS believe those things. They have been part and parcel of the historical foundations of the Faith for millennia. Things which are to be presumed in common are not items for which labels indicating diversity are created. Therefore, it is completely redundant to say within a Christian (historical) context that a person is a futurist with regards to these items. Those things are presumed and subsumed within the title of “Christian.” This would be about as silly as claiming that all Christians are preterists simply because they believe the Messiah has already come. All Christians believe the Messiah has already come, so there is no need to make a distinction between Christians on something that all Christians have always believed (the machinations of a vocal Internet cultic teaching notwithstanding).


                          Therefore, in historical context, the terms “futurist” and “preterist” have been used to describe a person’s belief on the timing of debatable events, most notably, the Great Tribulation, and sometimes, the “coming,” that is described in Matthew 24. There are various levels of historical preterism, some of which do not take the “coming” in Matthew 24 to be a first century event and separate out the Great Tribulation from that language. I’m not one of those, but I recognize their existence.


                          This point becomes very patently obvious when one throws in the other players into this eschatological dispute - namely historicism and idealism. When those two terms are examined, it is very obvious that the issue in dispute is NOT the timing (i.e. futuricty) of the Second Coming or General Resurrection. It is regarding the timing and nature of the events leading up to that point. In orthodoxy, historicists are not those who believe that the event known as the Second Coming is manifested throughout history typically through the church age. That is preposterous. Similarly, in orthodoxy, idealists are not those that believe that the Second Coming of Christ is manifested ideally throughout the church age, but rather both of these views hold that this is a discrete and distinct event yet in our future. All these views hold the futuricity in common because that is a basic Christian belief. It does not make any of these views futurist, it makes them Christian.

                          I updated this argument a bit here:

                          http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=359

                          If interested, you can go take a gander.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by markedward View Post
                            Pantelism is a sub-division of Full Preterism, holding to Universalism, which traditional Full Preterism is not.)

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Full_Preterism
                            I personally know the author who coined the word pantelism (Pastor Chori Jonathin Seraiah), and I would think he has the right to define it since he invented it. And he means it as identical to hyperpreterism. If some hyperpreterists have taken it make some distinction that is contrary to authorial intent while the author is still living and his book (The End of All Things) which coined the phrase is still in print. If anyone is interested I can type out the introductory portion of his book where he talks about coining the word and what he intends to convey by it, which follows then his usage. At the end he interacts with John Noe, who was not a universalist then or now, and refers to him as a pantelist.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              On another note, I would be careful in using Wikipedia as a source for anything controversial and I say that being the author of at least 50% of that Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is all about compromise, I wrote that article with a hyperpreterist and we both had to give and take on things we would have written differently. So while it is a good start for some basic basic things, I would go to more scholarly sources for other information.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X