The Narrow Path Ministries

Hello Allyn.
Just wondering if you could give some reasons for why you've gone full-preterist. I mean, what were some of the things that "clinched it" for you? I've always been curious about this view and why people hold it. I'd love to hear from you on this Allyn.

Sean wrote:Hello Allyn.
Just wondering if you could give some reasons for why you've gone full-preterist. I mean, what were some of the things that "clinched it" for you? I've always been curious about this view and why people hold it. I'd love to hear from you on this Allyn.

Hey Sean,

I will be coming back to this to give you a better understanding of the reasons I have, but let me say this before I go off to work - it was a process for me over a span of 4 years. I fought it every step of the way because I, like so many, had been spoon fed the futurist view and its hold on a person is almost a death grip. I will also say that since making this move to full-preterism (please never use the put down term hyper-preterism) it has been likewise fully liberating in the spiritual sense.

The hope the 1st century Christians had was that it was all to soon come about and that their present suffering was about to be vindicated. I can and will demonstrate this from passage after passage.

Gotta go.

Hello Allyn & Sean.

I'm sure you and others know how complicated and confusing eschatology can be! Especially we who have a dispensational background (a majority of evangelicals, most of us). It took me many years to be able to "see" passages like Matthew 24 in a way that wasn't "clouded" by what I had been taught. I had to make deliberated efforts to do this: It was hard work!

Obviously, Allyn, you have a lot to talk about in answer to Sean. I have questions too. Not just questions for a full-preterist, but eschatological questions in general which I'm asking, and studying. I would think that your site would be a good reference point for discussion here. I've read one Resurrection article and found it well laid out and that it addressed full-preterism at least as good (if not better) than I've seen before. I've read many full-preterist articles and listened to several mp3 teachings on it (pro and con).

I study pro & con viewpoints on just about every topic I look into. This is the value of debating or hearing a debate about a subject: You get all angles and could be proven wrong! I'm reminded of something Steve (Gregg) said about this: If he's wrong about anything, he wants to know! This is also my attitude.

Back to the topic.
I was a partial-preterist before I was all that familiar with this specific camp in theology. Since studying it in both full and partial versions, I've seen the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments. "Partial-Preterist" best describes certain aspects of my eschatology. However, I can't say it's my specific "camp" or "school" because: like other systems of theology, such as dispensationalism, there are certain defined limits. These limits an be restrictions that "cloud" our thinking (as I mentioned above). Or, these limits can be helpful ways to organize what we believe.

On general principle, I'm cautious and skeptical about systematic theologies. They're a good tool to use or to have but can set up categories that "box" the biblical text into "sectioned-off categories." This can result in our seeing the Bible through the particular "lens" of the said systematic theology. This can lead us further and further away from what the [original] authors wrote and intended to say and mean.

I hope I'm not too far off topic, as I'm really talking about hermeneutics! In any event, partial-preterism is a tool I use but I can't commit myself to it fully; seeing as it is a systematic theology. I "got out of" one eschatological systematic theology (dispensationalism) and am not interested in getting bound up by another! Btw, I'm not suggesting anyone has done this (Allyn, Sean, others). I'm simply saying that I'm skeptical---and perhaps even cynical---about any system that "has all the answers." On this point we may respectfully disagree. I mean no offense.

I have some quick questions for now, Allyn.

1) Were you ever fully convinced of partial-preterism?
(I am not in the sense outlined above: It [only] partially-describes some of my view. I doubt it has all the answers just as I don't think any systematic theology does: They're too limited, imo)!

2) Have you listened to Steve's Olivet Discourse lectures?
I'm assuming you have. These lectures were very valuable for me in the way Steve explained how Matthew [24] "combined" what is addressed separately in Luke 17:20 ff. and ch 21. Matthew's method of organizing things in the whole book are topical; whereas Luke seems to have used a more chronological and/or "separate topics and events" arrangement. For this reason, Matthew---and don't get me wrong---can seem to be what I'll call "sloppy" (no disrespect intended). In other words, and not just in ch 24; Matthew is hard to read and exegete {interpret} due to his unique method of organizing material and general style of writing. I could give other examples but think I've made the point: Matthew is hard to "decipher" at times. Chapter 24 is no exception!

Steve's presentations have shown me that Matthew 24 probably cannot be correctly interpreted in isolation: The "comparing scripture with scripture" method seems to apply here. Yet this presents problems in that Matthew would have been read by itself to the original audience: How would they have understood it?, etc. (I wonder if or how they did?)! At any rate, since we have the other Gospels; they're there to compare and contrast. Any contradictions or seeming contradictions could be resolved.

I have other scripture reference questions I may ask: ones that I've found hard to "fit" into a full-preterist category. But I've said enuf for now....Thanks, and good to see you guys on this new forum! Take Care,

I have some quick questions for now, Allyn.

Glad to receive them, Rick.

1) Were you ever fully convinced of partial-preterism?
(I am not in the sense outlined above: It [only] partially-describes some of my view. I doubt it has all the answers just as I don't think any systematic theology does: They're too limited, imo)!

No, I can't say that I was. I went along with the label for only a short time. I found that it was too much like "kissing your sister", it left me unfulfilled by falling short of the real deal.

2) Have you listened to Steve's Olivet Discourse lectures?
I'm assuming you have. These lectures were very valuable for me in the way Steve explained how Matthew [24] "combined" what is addressed separately in Luke 17:20 ff. and ch 21. Matthew's method of organizing things in the whole book are topical; whereas Luke seems to have used a more chronological and/or "separate topics and events" arrangement. For this reason, Matthew---and don't get me wrong---can seem to be what I'll call "sloppy" (no disrespect intended). In other words, and not just in ch 24; Matthew is hard to read and exegete {interpret} due to his unique method of organizing material and general style of writing. I could give other examples but think I've made the point: Matthew is hard to "decipher" at times. Chapter 24 is no exception!

I certainly have listened to every minute of it. I found them valuable as well and in fact they helped to lead me away from partial preterism. I came up with a couple of methods that help me in the verification of full-preterism because of just like what you have said concerning Matthew 24. These methods utilize the Epistles in affirmation of the Olivet Discourse. Someday soon I will share this with you on this board. I do not want to impose myself on anyone. I suppose it is possible that since Full-preterism is considered heresy by some here then it may be also viewed that way by the board owners and therefore not permitted. I would like clarification on this.

Steve's presentations have shown me that Matthew 24 probably cannot be correctly interpreted in isolation: The "comparing scripture with scripture" method seems to apply here. Yet this presents problems in that Matthew would have been read by itself to the original audience: How would they have understood it?, etc. (I wonder if or how they did?)! At any rate, since we have the other Gospels; they're there to compare and contrast. Any contradictions or seeming contradictions could be resolved.

I agree

I have other scripture reference questions I may ask: ones that I've found hard to "fit" into a full-preterist category. But I've said enuf for now....Thanks, and good to see you guys on this new forum! Take Care,

Rick, feel free to ask me anything. Can't guarantee I'll have the answer for all your questions but I am willing to take a stab at them.

You take care also.

I had an open mind toward full-preterism, but it just doesn't measure up to the big picture. Reading NT Wright is devastating to full-preterism. The main issue is, of course, resurrection. Jesus was resurrected bodily, as a firstfruits. The word resurrection MEANS bodily. The pharisees believed in a future and general bodily resurrection and Paul sided with them on that particular issue. Jesus' resurrection was an invasion of that future reality into the present so as to give us assurance and empower us for today. The whole tenor of Scripture is that God will restore the original creation and, in a sense, make it even better (ignorant perfection doesn't measure up to knowledgeable perfection). Any form of preterism that denies that the power of the resurrection will eventually finish death off 'so to speak' misses the mark as far as I understand it.

In Christ,
matthew

mattrose wrote:I had an open mind toward full-preterism, but it just doesn't measure up to the big picture. Reading NT Wright is devastating to full-preterism. The main issue is, of course, resurrection. Jesus was resurrected bodily, as a firstfruits. The word resurrection MEANS bodily. The pharisees believed in a future and general bodily resurrection and Paul sided with them on that particular issue. Jesus' resurrection was an invasion of that future reality into the present so as to give us assurance and empower us for today. The whole tenor of Scripture is that God will restore the original creation and, in a sense, make it even better (ignorant perfection doesn't measure up to knowledgeable perfection). Any form of preterism that denies that the power of the resurrection will eventually finish death off 'so to speak' misses the mark as far as I understand it.

In Christ,
matthew

Hi Matt,

Yeah, the resurrection topic is a good one to deal with concerning Full-preterism. I guess this is why I say that I do not agree with all that some preterist sites come up with about the resurrection, but I think I am real comfortable in how I personally feel about Christ's bodily resurrection. Alas, another thread topic. Also, I wanted to add that the new heavens and earth (nhe) subject has taken a new scope of meaning for me. I have an article on that as well but still for another time.

Hi Matthew. Gtsy on the new forum!

Your summary of N.T. Wright's views brings up several sub-topics that we could individually address. Btw, I concur with you and NTW on the points you raised, especially on the nature of the nature of the [Christ's and our future] resurrected body: It's a physical one "animated by the Holy Spirit" as NTW commented elsewhere (link available upon request).
________

Briefly to Allyn, then I have to go for today.

My above to Matthew was one point in your Resurrection article that I thought I would probably bring up later. Have you read Wright on this? But for now....

In reply to if you were ever fully convinced of partial-preterism, you wrote:No, I can't say that I was. I went along with the label for only a short time. I found that it was too much like "kissing your sister", it left me unfulfilled by falling short of the real deal.

I hope you understood my observations on systematic theologies and their potentially inherent weaknesses or flaws (in my post above, since you didn't really comment about them).

Your reply here (as I've quoted you) seems to indicate something that I hope you won't take offense at. Namely, it appears that you may have switched "one system for another." If you did or didn't; this isn't necessarily a bad or wrong thing.

However, like Matthew, being open to full-preterism; I studied both it and partial-preterism in-depth. This was about 5 or 6 years ago. I found that the handling of the text by many full-preterists closely resembled the ways dispensationalists do. Not to be offensive, but what I saw was "literal and wooden" interpretations. That is, seeing the text in a too literalistic way. I saw what I would interpret as prooftexting.

My determination was that full-preterism and dispensationalism, though totally different in their beliefs!, had a shared way of looking at the Bible in this overly-literal way. In fact, I came to eventually viewing them as "cousins" much in the same way Calvinism and Arminianism are intricately inter-related.

Many discussions and/or debates bypass the very important element of hermeneutics. I've raised my above points to try to get us on a common hermeneutic ground and/or to raise important hermeneutical questions---with an admittedly rather serious critique of full-preterism (and not providing examples, which I can).

As before, partial-pretersim is a "tool" I use that doesn't supply every answer (I don't expect any system of theology to do that). I'm "fully convinced of it" for what it covers. It accurately describes part of what I believe the Bible teaches. Imo, systems cannot contain or fully explain the full counsel of God's Word. Any system makes this claim is immediately suspect to me (as an ex-dispensationalist)! Systematic theologies are mere tools to categorize what the Bible says {biblical theology}...with potentially inherent weaknesses. And especially so when what they teach plainly contradicts the the teaching of scripture.

Biblical theology {what the entire Bible teaches} informs systematic theology and always takes precedence over it. What the Bible said and says, then we can organize the material and reform it as needed, imo.

Is what I'm saying making sense? Gtg: Thanks,

P.S. Allyn (we simul-posted).
The New Heavens and New Earth is a theme I've been studying for a few months. Though not a full-preterist; I seem to see it in a "more realized way" than other partial-preterists (and Christians in general for that matter). To go into this might deserve a new thread, I don't know...Gtg: Take care all,

No offense taken at all, Rick. I think until you ask specific questions of what I believe, you will never know. I am not a one system to another kind of guy. I read the Scriptures and I gain from what I read. If that takes me to a new label, sobeit, but its not the label I am after. To tell you the truth I rarely go outside of the Bible. I have never read NTW and unless I had a specific reason to do so I probably wouldn't. Usually I get enough sense of what the view of well-known writers is by what someone else has to say about them. I may reference a person from time to time but rarely. I am just a simple man with generally simple thoughts. I really do find all I need to know from Scripture by just reading it. If it is silent on a subject then I find no need to go searching for anothers opinion.

I have to get to bed! Maybe I will some day? ... just kidding.

Since I think what Wright said applies to this discussion (and it was very helpful for me), would it be okay with you if I posted an excerpt of what he said about the resurrection body?

I agree with you that good ol' fashioned Bible study is a great thing to do!
I'll post a "problem text" (for full-preterism) tomorrow morning or soon, with questions.
Rick-out (like a light, to work in 6 hours)! < OFF.

RickC wrote:I have to get to bed! Maybe I will some day? ... just kidding.

Since I think what Wright said applies to this discussion (and it was very helpful for me), would it be okay with you if I posted an excerpt of what he said about the resurrection body?

I agree with you that good ol' fashioned Bible study is a great thing to do!
I'll post a "problem text" (for full-preterism) tomorrow morning or soon, with questions.
Rick-out (like a light, to work in 6 hours)! < OFF.

Yes of course it would be alright. Goodnight, brother.