The Narrow Path Ministries

I came into a preterist viewpoint because my studies of the kingdom of God led me to discussions with full preterists. Once I learned the general idea of their viewpoint I thought that the kingdom concept would make sense to them.

What I appreciated about these people espousing full preterism was that they were recognizing that that were prophecies fulfilled in the first century. One thing that came to mind at some point is "Why didn't I learn that judgments were prophesied and completed over the people of the first century?"

Yet the thing that struck me as being wrong about full preterists was that they became so fixated on their new theological platform as if there could be nothing else. People have done this major shift, their whole perspective changed, now they think there is nothing more to look at.

Well, I have remained a "general" preterist. The reason I have remained a preterist is because I have seen distinctions in uses of words and events that seem to be glossed over by full preterists. It seems that people have done a significant shift from a dispensational view to full preterism because there were not some of the balancing doctrines.

I think that the balancing doctrines involve understandings of the kingdom of God and the resurrections. Another problem occurs, which is shared among most Christians, is to treat a word solely as having religious meaning when there can be a common meaning. For example, "salvation" may to some degree mean "being justified with God" but also may mean "being protected out of harms way." Another word is "redemption" which has different usages, different events.

Since my change to preterism (from being roughly a post-mil) I made a quick recording of ideas on resurrection and realized that that Christians have not apparently examined the resurrections in scripture as a whole. Usually someone looks at the Rev 20 resurrection or at the resurrection of Jesus. I think we made "resurrection" into a magic word with only one meaning whereas Jesus used the word in a more flexible manner.

Its these sorts of issues that seemed to be a weakness in Eschatology overall and then allowed full preterists to overshoot the mark.

Anyhow I consider myself a "general" preterist ( my own designation) as kind of the best designation so far. No other Eschatological designations (post-mil, amil, pre-mil) seem to fit.

Hello Mike.

I've already joined in on a Full-Preterist and "general eschatology" discussion with Allyn and Sean (see the only other thread on this board at this time). I've known these guys for quite a while longer than I've known you (meeting you @ TheologyWeb a few months ago). For this reason, I may limit my discussion on the topic to the other thread. Allyn has already responded and I will reply in kind soon: We have a lot of ground to cover. However, I'll comment on:

Where you wrote:What I appreciated about these people espousing full preterism was that they were recognizing that that were prophecies fulfilled in the first century. One thing that came to mind at some point is "Why didn't I learn that judgments were prophesied and completed over the people of the first century?"

Yet the thing that struck me as being wrong about full preterists was that they became so fixated on their new theological platform as if there could be nothing else. People have done this major shift, their whole perspective changed, now they think there is nothing more to look at.

Yes. Both full and partial preterism point to [possible or probable] past fulfillments of prophecy.

Also, I've already posted on things related on the other thread. Namely, how one can get "locked" into a systematic theology to an extent that one sees theology and/or the Bible through a particular theology's "lens" which can "cloud"---or even "block out!"---what the Bible objectively says: It can be chopped up into prooftexts. These prooftexts, or texts cited, to be more generous, often don't actually address what they are thought to support or "prove."

Since I'm going to be posting with Allyn and Sean on the other thread, I don't want to seem to be "talking" about anyone here! But I can say that, thus far, Full-Preterism seems to closely resemble a "dispensational way" of reading or understanding texts out of context in order to make them "fit" the system. (Btw, I'm sure I'll be saying these same things on the other thread or some things similar).This is complicated stuff!

Lastly, and maybe you would like to join us on the other thread?; I don't think a systematic theology exists that is beyond scrutiny, in need of continuing examination, and reforms when necessary. They aren't "air tight" and shouldn't necessarily be seen as forever being so, imo.

Biblical theology informs systematic theology about what it should say, and, the former always takes precedence or "has the upper hand," imo! Good to see you, Mike!

I agree with most of what you are saying.

But one thing I would tend toward, If I had enough time and energy, would be to start writing out a systematic theology just for the reason that the ideas I have presented are not in isolation but exist as part of a system of thinking.

One reason to present it as a system would be to expose the weaknesses.

My goal would be to have doctrines traceable to the scripture alongside the argument or defense. This has seemed helpful since there are too many doctrines that either are not really connected with scriptures or there are just a list of scripture without explaining how those scriptures relate to their doctrine. hahaha

I'm guilty of presenting ideas without the related logic. And I hate when people just supply a list of scriptures as if they were super spiritual by only quoting scripture. But they made an interpretation simply by deciding what verses to show. One of the problems here is that the same people assume the meaning of words and accuracy of translation.

mikew wrote:I agree with most of what you are saying.

But one thing I would tend toward, If I had enough time and energy, would be to start writing out a systematic theology just for the reason that the ideas I have presented are not in isolation but exist as part of a system of thinking.

One reason to present it as a system would be to expose the weaknesses.

My goal would be to have doctrines traceable to the scripture alongside the argument or defense. This has seemed helpful since there are too many doctrines that either are not really connected with scriptures or there are just a list of scripture without explaining how those scriptures relate to their doctrine. hahaha

I'm guilty of presenting ideas without the related logic. And I hate when people just supply a list of scriptures as if they were super spiritual by only quoting scripture. But they made an interpretation simply by deciding what verses to show. One of the problems here is that the same people assume the meaning of words and accuracy of translation.

I'm with you on this Mike. Unles it fits the purpose of the thread I will never just give a verse and sy - see, there it is - or at least seldom. I think of times when that would be good enough.