Confessions of a Quasi-Partial-Preterist

[RickC]

Greetings, Theos Truth Pursuers!

Edited in a few days later; thread could have accurately been called:
Confessions of a Quasi-Full-Preterist!!!

I keep View Active Topics as my home page and have been following Steve, so to speak, since I heard him on The Bible Answer Man in about 2003. I haven't been posting much on the forum for some time now.

Quick question for Steve: I saw on google that you'll be debating the full preterist, Don K. Preston later this year. Is that on?

On to the topic . . . .

Steve and I are about the same age and grew up when dispensationalism was the sensation everywhere, even among non-believers! The Hal Lindsay "Late Great Planet Earth" era. I recall the first serious Bible reading I did when I was about 18. Read Matt 24 and "Late Great." I noticed that they didn't really seem to match. I mean, wasn't Jesus actually speaking to those folks, back then?

In any event, a couple years later I went to an A/G Bible college and learned the different views on eschatology. I became an amillennialist and partial-preterist, though I was unfamiliar with the latter term then. My reasons were essentially and exactly the same as Steve's, which are probably best illustrated in his Rev 20 lectures.
===============

Encountering Full Preterism

I'm constantly trying to find debates or lectures on anything biblical and have heard a quite a few on preterism (full and partial). Other than this, there have been full preterists on this forum. I've read posts by others on other forums too.

Not to be overly critical of some of them, but, frankly, a lot of them go into a kind of Bible Thumping Mode, which, I don't suppose there's anything necessarily wrong with that. I mean, if one is posting with others who also believe in the Bible, as it were. It seems a fair amount of full preterists have a background in dispensationalism. So maybe they're kind of over-reacting? Enuf said on this.

In my past posts here I've said (something like) "I'm a 3/4ths Preterist" -- in that -- I've had an intuitive kind of hunch, or something like that, to where I'm, apparently, a little more than a partial preterist. By "intuitive hunch" I don't really mean "how I'm feeling". It's more like some kind of 'intuitive hermeneutical understanding' of certain key passages, or of apocalyptic language and books (like Revelation).
==================

A Couple Asides

Watching debates between Christians and Muslims (please take a Tums in advance!); one Muslim argument is that Christians made Jesus into a god (or God) and that they have never really appreciated the fact that he was a prophet. This latter critique has merit, especially when one undertakes the task of unraveling The Olivet Discourse and all of the rest of NT prophecy.

Many Christians, even famous ones like C.S. Lewis, have said things about Jesus' supposed failed-soon-return. That Jesus, Paul, and other NT writers only thought Jesus would return soon but didn't. In other words, their predictions failed. This way of seeing the NT is widely accepted among liberal scholars, etc.
==============

Back to the Main Topic

As I've been wrenching my mind over the last few years on all of this, it's been a lot of hard work! I've been agnostic while maintaining my (default) quasi-partial-preterist position.

Questions I've asked:
1) "What if Jesus actually did return in 70AD and that the rapture (cf. 1 Thess 4:16-17) has happened?" Some full preterists, as I mentioned before, have said stuff like, "Why don't you just believe what the Bible says?" I do believe it. But when one is rearranging one's beliefs, just knowing what the Bible says is only part of the task. I need some kind of explanation to possibly replace my current and former beliefs, if you see what I'm saying(?)!

2) "What if Jesus, in fact, will not return 'bodily' as I've always believed?" (and I'm not trying to make a case for that right now). I've felt like, if he doesn't come back, it probably won't really matter! I mean, God is going to do what He's going to do. 'Just fine by me.

3) "What if my current view of Conditional Immortality (aka, Annihilationism) is incorrect, and 'my soul' will just go to heaven when I die?" Again, this would be OK by me!

4) Related to 3: I'm doubting my CI view now also.
==============

Wrapping This Up

If I'm not a full preterist (and don't know it yet), I'm about as close as one can get, I would imagine! To truly "convert" to this view would certainly change me. At least in terms of what I've been taught, and including what I've been learning.

I just found a "Suggested Watch" by a full preterist pastor, David B. Curtis. The page I'm linking to (his Berean Bible Church page) has a playlist of 7 videos, all on eschatology. Pastor David's presentation is not only "irenic" but loaded with information and new ways of seeing things. I'm going to spend some time digesting all he has to say. Sometimes he moves pretty quickly through texts, but he's not 'proof-texting'. He gives reasons in his interpretations.

The End Times, Pastor David Curtis

Thanks for reading and be seeing you, here, there, tho not necessarily in the air!
Rick

[Paidion]

Steve and I are about the same age and grew up when dispensationalism was the sensation everywhere, even among non-believers! The Hal Lindsay "Late Great Planet Earth" era. I recall the first serious Bible reading I did when I was about 18. Read Matt 24 and "Late Great." I noticed that they didn't really seem to match. I mean, wasn't Jesus actually speaking to those folks, back then?

Yeh, I suppose Hal Lindsey and his LGPE was long ago for you young whipper-snappers. For us old fogies, Lindsey was rather recent. My mother Hazel, my siblings, and my aunts were dispensationalists. What I remember as a child was my mother's Scofield Bible and her "Our Hope" magazines. My grandfather referred to the "Our Hope" magazines as "Hazel's bible." I continued to be a dispensationalist until I was 24.

In my personal Bible study, I couldn't find dispensationalism or a "pre-trib rapture" in I Thess 4. I studied Irenæus and other early Christian literature, and found they believed in only ONE second coming of Christ, and that after the Antichrist appears. However, they did believe in a future millenium immediately after the second coming. So I became what is now known as a "historic pre-millenialist,"— the position of the early church.That is still my eschatological view to this day.

Preterism of any stripe makes less sense to me than even dispensationalism, but full preterism seems ludicrous. How can it be seriously believed that Christ's second coming was in 70 A.D.? He warned not to believe any secret comings in hidden rooms or closets. He said his coming would be like the lighting (not "lightning") which shines (not "flashes") from the east to the west. When the sun shines from the east to the west, everyone knows it. So it is with the second coming. "Every eye shall see Him." Surely if Christ had come in 70 A.D. his coming would not have gone unnoticed.

[dwilkins]

The hardest part of this study in my opinion is realizing when you are reading things into the text. Did the rapture happen? Well, it depends what you mean by the rapture. Maybe what's described in 1st Thess. 4 is simply not what we've recently imagined. Is the arrival of Christ like lighting or lightening? Well, what property of lightening or lighting are we supposed to look at (speed, brilliance, intangibility, the fact that it's in the heavens so that it's associated with invisible things? etc. etc. etc.). I think it's more helpful to look at simple advice passages such as 2nd Thess. 1. There, Paul promises those people he wrote to that they'd receive relief from their persecution when Christ is revealed with his angels. It's consistent with the rest of the proposed timing and the tone of the rest of New Testament encouragement. If it didn't happen as promised we have some serious problem with some combination of our doctrines or inspiration, apostalic authority, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and probably a number of other topics. Here's the passage again in case you are unfamiliar with it:

2Th 1:1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.
2Th 1:4 Therefore we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your steadfastness and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions that you are enduring.
2Th 1:5 This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—
2Th 1:6 since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you,
2Th 1:7 and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels
2Th 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,
2Th 1:10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.
2Th 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power,
2Th 1:12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Doug

[Duncan]

Thanks for sharing Rick. I guess I am about a 90 % full preterist. I take JS Russell's position, that the Second Coming happened at AD 70 but that was the beginning of the millennium. I have held this position for about the last 25 years. Don't be in any hurry to be a full preterist. I say that because when you are a full pret you need to fit everything in before AD 70 and I think some objectivity on a given passage is lost. For example if you are a full pret then the millennium had to end by AD 70--had to. Where you are now you can explore an issue like the millennium with more freedom.

[RickC]

'Been busy the last few days & thanks for the replies!

In my personal Bible study, I couldn't find dispensationalism or a "pre-trib rapture" in I Thess 4. I studied Irenæus and other early Christian literature, and found they believed in only ONE second coming of Christ, and that after the Antichrist appears. However, they did believe in a future millenium immediately after the second coming. So I became what is now known as a "historic pre-millenialist,"— the position of the early church.That is still my eschatological view to this day.

Thanks for the cartoons,

And yes, I knew you took the Historic Pre-mill position. And it's true that many Early Fathers held to it. I once read how one of them applied a text to a future Second Coming. Actually, I now recall that it was the "sheep and goats" passage in Matthew. A long time ago (circa 1979) I delivered a sermon using this text. I remember that as I preached, I was wondering if I really had it right -- that it was actually about The (Future) Final Judgment. I've wondered about it all these years. I now feel is probably about 70AD and am still studying.

Preterism of any stripe makes less sense to me than even dispensationalism, but full preterism seems ludicrous. How can it be seriously believed that Christ's second coming was in 70 A.D.?

Steve covers Full Preterism in his lectures. Yesterday I found a new, long interview with Steve about Preterism in general: Deeper Waters Radio -- Guest: Steve Gregg. The sermon series I linked to, with Pastor Curtis, is another good resource.

To briefly answer your question: Full Preterists believe the Second Coming was the coming in judgment of 70AD. In the OT, the many passages of Yahweh "coming on the clouds (in judgment)" would be the NT parallels.

He (Jesus) warned not to believe any secret comings in hidden rooms or closets. He said his coming would be like the lighting (not "lightning") which shines (not "flashes") from the east to the west. When the sun shines from the east to the west, everyone knows it. So it is with the second coming. "Every eye shall see Him." Surely if Christ had come in 70 A.D. his coming would not have gone unnoticed.

I checked the Greek for "lighting." The same word is translated "lightning" (as when Jesus said he saw Satan falling like lightning). Otherwise, it can mean "bright light" or "shining light," etc., as you probably know.

Interestingly enough, since Jesus did say "from the east to the west", wouldn't this seem to indicate he was referencing a day? (sun comes up in the east). Seen in this way, "the day of the Lord (as a coming in judgment)" makes sense! Jesus would have been saying that when it happens it will literally be apparent as the sun rising.

Thanks, Paidion!
==============

The hardest part of this study in my opinion is realizing when you are reading things into the text. Did the rapture happen? Well, it depends what you mean by the rapture. Maybe what's described in 1st Thess. 4 is simply not what we've recently imagined. Is the arrival of Christ like lighting or lightening? Well, what property of lightening or lighting are we supposed to look at (speed, brilliance, intangibility, the fact that it's in the heavens so that it's associated with invisible things? etc. etc. etc.). I think it's more helpful to look at simple advice passages such as 2nd Thess. 1. There, Paul promises those people he wrote to that they'd receive relief from their persecution when Christ is revealed with his angels. It's consistent with the rest of the proposed timing and the tone of the rest of New Testament encouragement. If it didn't happen as promised we have some serious problem with some combination of our doctrines or inspiration, apostalic authority, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, and probably a number of other topics.

I hear what you're saying as far as if the rapture happened (and wasn't what we've been told it would be in the future).

Unlike you, perhaps, is that I don't really subscribe to traditional views of Scritpure. That is, in terms of what could be called 'the evangelical tradition'. I believe in the Bible, but take more of a "Narrative-Historical" view these days. As to this method and what it's all about I'll link to http://www.postost.net/ -- Andrew Perriman's Blog. Highly recommended!

Thanks!
===============

Thanks for sharing Rick. I guess I am about a 90 % full preterist. I take JS Russell's position, that the Second Coming happened at AD 70 but that was the beginning of the millennium. I have held this position for about the last 25 years. Don't be in any hurry to be a full preterist. I say that because when you are a full pret you need to fit everything in before AD 70 and I think some objectivity on a given passage is lost. For example if you are a full pret then the millennium had to end by AD 70--had to. Where you are now you can explore an issue like the millennium with more freedom.

Thanks for your reply too!

As I was saying to dwilkins, I'm not really having a 'major problem', so to speak, with lining up my doctrines. You know, all in a row, with all the proof-texts, everything down pat. While Systematic Theology is valuable, useful, and something we probably can't totally avoid, I've always regarded it as something of an enemy when trying to decipher alternative meanings.

At the same time, it's true that I'm a little freaked out, LOL

My plans are to approach each text on its own merit without direct reference to others, nor to any particular doctrine. And then, see how things might fit together.

Brief comment about Revelation: I've been seeing it as a 1st century Jewish-Christian document. My former view was Partial-Preterist: that it was mostly about 70AD up till the last three chapters with 1) the Millennium, 2) the General Resurrection, 3) Final Judgment, and 4) New Heavens and Earth being future.

My working method for Revelation and 1-4 (above) is probably best described as a combination of the Idealistic View with a heavy emphasis on the nature and meaning of Apocalyptic Literature.

I've not worked out all the details, but my worldview is getting rocked!

Take care, folks!

[dwilkins]

Rick,

I highly suggest you Google "Premillennial Preterism". This is a term that Duncan came up with to categorize what I think you are describing. I think you'll find that his two books will help you flesh out the position you are describing.

Doug

[Paidion]

Rick, thanks for that link to the "Deep Waters" program with Steve Gregg. I listened to it in its entirety. I fully agree with his position with regards to Israel.

Of course with regards to Matthew 24, even I am a "partial preterist" to some degree. But it is a much smaller part than Steve's. Out of the 51 verses I think only 2 of them speak of the destruction of the temple, and event which occurred around 70 A.D. But I think the question of the disciples in verse 3 ask about two different matters:

"Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

I think that "these things" refer to the destruction of the temple which Jesus had just addressed. But why insert that little word "and" unless "the sign of His coming and the end of the age" was a different matter, namely Christ's coming at the end of the present age which extends from Jesus first coming right to his second coming. So I think in response the disciples' questions, Jesus mainly addresses the events which will occur just prior to His second coming. He completes the discourse with these words:

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." (Matthew 24:29-31)

Jesus said these events would occur immediately after the tribulation of those days. The following passage also speaks of our gathering together to Him. This event also seems to be speaking of the second coming:

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. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)

[RICHinCHRIST]

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.
And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." (Matthew 24:29-31)

Jesus said these events would occur immediately after the tribulation of those days. The following passage also speaks of our gathering together to Him.

But Jesus said that everything would commence within the generation of his contemporaries.

All these things, in my opinion, is in reference to everything Christ said before this verse... This is including verses 29-31. If verses 29-33 have not occurred, then Jesus was wrong!

This event also seems to be speaking of the second coming:

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. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)

Im not a full preterist (yet) but I think the full preterists have a good argument for this text as referring to 70 AD. Paul writes to the Thessalonians telling them to not worry about anything they have heard or a letter they have received declaring that the day of The Lord had already occurred. If the day of The Lord, as futurists understand it, is the physical appearance and world-wide visual recognition of Jesus coming back to earth... How could the Thessalonians have been deceived about whether the day of The Lord had come if this is how they understood it? Couldn't Paul have just said, "Guys, just look out your window, is the sun still shining? Does the moon still give light? did you see Jesus physically return? Then why are you troubled as if the second coming has occurred?" This proves that the Thessalonians must have been given a different explanation of what the day of The Lord was by Paul. It must have been something altogether different than all of the world visually seeing Christ return physically.

[jeremiah]

hello rich,

since you've been considering hyper preterism, what is your thinking now on the resurrection of the dead?

edit: p.s. I don't mean to divert the conversation at all, I was just curious of your thinking on this aspect of "full" preterism. I think they effectively deny the resurrection, which I believe is a dangerous mistake.

grace and peace to you.

[Paidion]

How could the Thessalonians have been deceived about whether the day of The Lord had come if this is how they understood it? Couldn't Paul have just said, "Guys, just look out your window, is the sun still shining? Does the moon still give light? did you see Jesus physically return? Then why are you troubled as if the second coming has occurred?" This proves that the Thessalonians must have been given a different explanation of what the day of The Lord was by Paul. It must have been something altogether different than all of the world visually seeing Christ return physically.

Rich, the part of your quote in italics describes the situation as I see it. But your conclusion drastically differs from mine. Here is my conclusion:

"Guys since you haven't seen Christ return, it's apparent that He hasn't returned. When He does return, it will be as obvious as the sun shining from the East when it rises in the morning to the West where it sets in the evening. Christ has not yet come, for when He does, every eye shall see Him. He will seen by all! He's not going to meet with some secret "in crowd" hidden away in some secret quarters. It's going to be an open show! All will know beyond the shadow of a doubt that He has returned! In that day it will be front-page news in every newspaper; it will be all that will be seen on television for days, and on internet news. What? You ask what newspapers, television, and the internet is? Never mind. Just some funny stuff that suddenly came into my mind. But be prepared! He's coming soon! and oh yeah. The great impersonator, the one who will set himself up in the place of Christ must be manifested first. Since that wicked one hasn't yet come, clearly the day of the Lord has not yet come."