Is there any book that challenges Partial Preterism?

[Guest]

For the record, I bought Steve's book before I ever knew who Steve was or what he believed. I read the book thinking he was a dispensationalist because he dedicated it to Chuck Smith. I was surprised to later find out he was Partial-Pret towards Revelation.

His views are well hidden in the book. Give it a read.

[Guest]

Thank you guys. I've read part of Steve's book and I'm not saying he doesn't hide his views well. I actually think he does. I just want to see a good rebuttal to the claims of Partial Preterism and that's not what's found in that book. That book is more or less an even handed presentation of each view without much heavy regard to defending against opposing views.

What I was asking about was a defense by dispensationalists against partial pret positions. I don't know of any books like that. I'd imagine with the growing popularity of partial and full preterism, there will eventually be such books. I just didn't know if any of you knew of any out now.

Thanks again....

[Guest]

Hi Aaron,

You might try "THE END TIMES CONTROVERSY " by Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice. I have never read it but based on this description found on Tim Lahaye's web-site, it sounds like it is what you are looking for:

Tim LaHaye, author of the megabestselling Left Behind® series, teams up with prophecy expert Thomas Ice in response to a growing controversy about the last days!


Has Jesus already returned?
When was Revelation written?
Is the rapture a contemporary idea, or was it supported by early Christians?
Where do we stand in God’s prophetic timetable?
Along with other prophecy scholars, LaHaye and Ice reveal the errors taught by preterists (those who believe the seven–year Tribulation and Christ’s return happened in the past). They provide guidelines for interpreting Bible prophecy and give readers a concise understanding of what the Bible says about the future, affirming Christ’s glorious return as an event we can still look forward to.

Hope that helps,
Mark

[Guest]

For the record, I bought Steve's book before I ever knew who Steve was or what he believed. I read the book thinking he was a dispensationalist because he dedicated it to Chuck Smith. I was surprised to later find out he was Partial-Pret towards Revelation.

I too had no idea of his leanings from his book until I later listened to his Revelation series and found this nice corner of the web. Of course if some positions have better Biblical and historical support for them, we can't blame Steve for that.
D.

[Guest]

Thanks Dolphin!
That's more in line of what I was looking for. I'm gonna get on my local library's site and see if they have it so I don't have to actually buy it.

[Guest]

LaHaye and Ice reveal the errors taught by preterists (those who believe the seven–year Tribulation and Christ’s return happened in the past). They provide guidelines for interpreting Bible prophecy and give readers a concise understanding of what the Bible says about the future, affirming Christ’s glorious return as an event we can still look forward to.

Just by reading this paragraph, it already seems to me that this is not an even handed book.

Preterists don't think that the "seven–year Tribulation" happened in the past, because they don't believe in the "seven–year Tribulation" .

They also don't believe that "Jesus' return happened in the past" or that He's "already returned". (at least not physically, as in the 2nd coming).

Perhaps they are dealing with the "full preterism" view as opposed to "partial preterism" (which is the position I thought you were looking for a book against). If they are calling this partial preterism, then they don't know what partial preterism is. They do usually try to mischaracterize othodox preterism in this way though, from what I've read from both authors.

Before I had an eschatalogical view, I read "Understanding Prophecy for Yourself" by LaHaye. That was one difficult experience. I just couldn't see how I could come to the same conclusion as him. I thought that the bible was very hard to understand as a result. He strung together scriptures that to all appearences, had nothing to do with each other, and then filled in the gaps with the dispensational story/timeline. His suggested method of interpretation was to "take everything litterally unless it is absurd to do so". I couldn't see that the Apostles were handling the OT scriptures this way, so this made little sense to me.

Anyway, to say the least, the book had little to do with "understanding prophecy for yourself" and was designed, with it's questions and guidence, to bring one to accept the dispensational view.

That's why a book like Steve's is so valuable to me. It presents the scriptures that each position uses for support, and let's you put the pieces together in a way that is truely "for yourself".

God bless,

[Guest]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, Derek. It does seem to indicate that it's only defending itself against full preterism. I just read of so many things that are presented as an argument against dispensationalism, I just wish there were more things against partial preterism. I like to see the best arguments against something to see if it can hold up to the challenge.

Understanding eschatology, to me, has been so frustrating. Really and truly, there seems to be so little reason to occupy my mind with it so much, since there are better Biblical topics to come to a complete understanding of.

It seems to me that there are so many people that are so absolutely sure that what they believe is right and every single one of them....dispies, partial and full preterists and so forth have a few things that they have to squeeze into their eschatology like a square block into a round hole.

I do just get this whole subject out of my mind, and then I'll hear something or read something that gets me thinking about it all again. It just bugs me that I've spent so much time trying to put it together (like the world's gonna explode just cause I can't figure out every detail ) and can come to no real solid conclusions.

It's almost like everything I've heard makes a little sense, but there's still some things that make such little sense that it all falls apart in my mind.

[Guest]

I would have to agree as well that it isn't evenhanded and probably is only defending itself against full-preterism. (Possibly broad-brushing all preterists as full-preterists) I do think that there are some arguements common to both full and partial preterism that hopefully would be addressed. I know the feeling of beliving one thing and then someone comes along an makes such a good point in one area, that I feel I need to ditch what I believe and believe what they do. Always nice to find some answers when you need them.

So anyway Aaron, hope that helps. Infact, let me know if it is a good read. I have never read anything by either author so I have no clue what you might be getting into, although I hope they offer some good answers.

Mark

[Guest]

It seems to me that there are so many people that are so absolutely sure that what they believe is right and every single one of them....dispies, partial and full preterists and so forth have a few things that they have to squeeze into their eschatology like a square block into a round hole.

I do just get this whole subject out of my mind, and then I'll hear something or read something that gets me thinking about it all again. It just bugs me that I've spent so much time trying to put it together (like the world's gonna explode just cause I can't figure out every detail ) and can come to no real solid conclusions.

It's almost like everything I've heard makes a little sense, but there's still some things that make such little sense that it all falls apart in my mind.

Your not alone. I spend a lot of my time trying to understand the complex diversity of division(s) within the body of Christ. Sometimes it seems that there just might be an answer for (nearly) everything, then the realization sets in that if you knew everything, you couldn't convince someone else anyway, so what's the point?

I think that's where grace comes in.

About you wanting to study different aspects of eschatology, I certainly agree with you wanting to hear the arguments and weigh the evidence. But as I study more and more, I think the solution is to build a biblical foundation of belief from the ground up. This is what I try to do with everything, including eschatology. My eschatology uses the most pertinent and clear verses first, and I work from there. The verses that are hard for me, I just hope I understand them better as I grow. I figure God doesn't want me to know right now (or ever). And if one day I do understand the issue better and change my mind then all the better. Even more of a reason to not "indoctrinate" people into any system before they have thought through the issue. The way I see it, if it's "clearly" stated and mentioned as important to Christians, then that is one category. If its something harder to pin down, then it's just going to take awhile to come to a conclusion (if ever). No one should quickly talk another into or out of a certain "doctrine". It should be your own conclusion drawn out over time and careful consideration. And when you reach a conclusion that differs from others? Well, either you need more time to consider your position or they do. Either way, grace should be paramount.

It sounds like your taking your time on this issue (that's a good thing), I wouldn't be worried about needing to reach a conclusion anytime soon.

My $.02

[Guest]

I just noticed this thread...and have a case of insomnia, may as well put it to use!

I had serious eschatology issues a long time ago but became Amillennial after a time of concentrated study. Sean mentioned how he starts with clear passages and proceeds from there. This is a good method for obvious reasons (you can understand some passages easily).

One thing I've observed as an ex-dispensationalist is how Amillennialists and/or partial-preterists and dispensationalists radically differ in one area. Namely, passages that are apparently didactic (have teaching in them) are, as a rule, taken to be "prophecy" by dispensationalists and vice versa...while Amillennialists, imo, have good, sound exegesis on all pertinent texts. Put another way, dispensationalists see symbolic passages literally and literal passages symbolically (they have it precisely backwards)!!!

The most prominent example of this is 1 Thess 4, where dispensationalists see "prophecy" on events, fitting into a chronology. Unfortunately for them, Paul is simply teaching what will happen to both deceased believers and those who remain alive when Christ returns. There isn't anything in the passage to suggest a chronology or that Paul sees the rapture as fitting into one (other than it will be at the last day). So Paul is doing didactics for the express purpose of comforting the believers on the status of their deceased loved ones--absent any chronology of other events into which the rapture "fits" (this is imported onto the text by dispensational theology). If you look for where it says the rapture will happen "before the Great Tribulation" in this chapter, for example, it simply is not there.

Dispensationalists make the other mistake of seeing prophetic and/or apocalyptic sections of Scripture as a kind of "list." By this, I mean like in Matthew 24 where they think Jesus is giving a step by step (in chronological order) teaching of events that will happen one after another. While he, indeed, did teach about events, it wasn't in a 1,2,3 order. Rather, Matthew 24 (and I highly recommend Steve's Olivet Discourse lectures) is apocalyptic and thus, filled with imagery and symbols. Also, Matthew 24, as Steve illustrates, is actually a combination of teachings that Jesus taught at different times (Luke 17 and Luke 21). Since Matthew arranges these separate teachings into one chapter: To take it as a "1,2,3 list" is erroneous.

On another thread I just recommended Steve's Revelation 20 lectures also (if you haven't heard them, they are comprehensive, best I've ever heard on it).

2 Thess one is yet another text dispensationalists completely misunderstand (via importing foreign ideas onto it). It is plain teaching with no chronology or differentiation between the "day of the Lord" and the "rapture" (to wit, there is no mention that the Thessalonian believers have been to heaven for seven years...they're the same people Paul wrote 1 Thess 4 to)! 2 Thess one converted me from dispensationalism to...I eventually found out it was: Amillennialism, though I had remained "post-trib" and Premill for a short time. I didn't know what preterism was or that I was a "partial" till about 3 years ago (I found out on DeeDee Warren's site where I was looking for Steve Gregg lectures)...she has a few. Also, Ken Gentry's Postmillennial lectures on her site are interesting though I am not "one."

Lastly, there is no "behind" in Matthew 24:40, 41. The word just isn't there! (The names of Tim LaHaye's books are extra-(non)-biblical)! Some will be "left" (unharmed) while others will be "taken" (away in judgment) just as those who were "taken" away at the time of Noah's flood. Search, and you will not find the word "behind" in this chapter, lol

It took me years & years to unravel the basics of Matt 24 because I couldn't seem hear it "without my dispensational ears on," so to speak, no matter how hard I tried, lol (And not that I have everything in it solved either, a quite difficult chapter in some ways, even Steve says this)....

The main thing is to just read what you see, imo, without importing anything into, onto, over, or under it............Better try for a nap........
God bless, Rick