Partial Preterism & Full Preterism

Post by **_Anonymous** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 am

Can someone please explain the difference?

Thanks,

Richard

Post by **_Steve** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:17 pm

The term "preterist" speaks of one's understanding concerning the timing of the fulfillment of prophecy. "Preterist" is from the Latin, "praeter," meaning "past." A preterist believes in a past fulfillment of a prophecy, whereas a futurist believes in a future fulfillment. Thus, in considering any given prophetic prediction, you are a preterist, if you think it was already fulfilled inthe past, and you are a futurist if you think that it is currently unfulfilled and remains to be fulfilled in the future.

It should therefore be clear that all Christians are "partial preterists" in that they believe in the past fulfillment of many prophecies (e.g., the Old Testament prophecies of the fall of Babylon, Tyre, Edom, etc. and the many prophecies about the first coming of Christ), but not all (e.g., the prophecies about the resurrection and the last judgment).

However, most Christians don't wear the label "preterist" comfortably, because it most commonly refers to one's approach to certain passages like Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation. These are prophecies that many still see as requiring a future fulfillment, but a "partial preterist" is someone who thinks that most of these predictions were fulfilled in the past (usually, in the Jewish War of 66-70 AD).

The "fully-realized preterist" is one who believes that there are no prophecies of scripture that remain to be fulfilled, and that every prediction has its fulfillment no later than 70 AD. These people don't believe in a future second coming of Christ, or any other future events that most of us believe to be associated with the end of the present world. This view is generally regarded as heretical, since the second coming of Christ at the end of the world has been part of Christian belief since the earliest centuries, and was attested by all the fathers of the church. This view is also, in my judgment, contrary to the teaching of scripture.

Post by **_Anonymous** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:26 pm

Thanks for your response, Steve.

My next questions is this:

Can you please provide a list of all the differente prophecies that have not been fulfilled yet?

Thanks,

Richard

Post by **_Sean** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:31 am

I'll let Steve answer this for himself but I'll list some of them that I feel have not been fulfilled yet.

The resurrection of the dead (aka the rapture, Day of the Lord)
Destruction of elements by fire (Also on the Day of the Lord) (2 Peter 3:10, 1 Thes 1)
Seperation of glorified Saints from the unsaved (Matt 25:46, Rom 14:10, Rev 20)
Eternal Judgement (Revelation 20)
New heavens and earth (Revelation 21-22)

Post by **_Ely** » Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:48 pm

I thought I'd "resurrect" this old thread

Can I ask, what is it that stops amillennlialists/partial preterists from becoming "fully-realised." In other words, what prophecies do you look at and think "there is no way that this has already been fulfilled"?

Post by **_mattrose** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:42 am

pretty much what sean just listed

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:03 pm

I guess I'm a nearly-Full Preterist. I believe the prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled are those regarding Jesus' return, the resurrection and the judgement (1 Thess. 4:13-5:11, Acts 1:11, Acts 17:31-32, Matt. 22:23-32, Rom 14:9-12, etc.). Many scriptures that are commonly applied to a future return, resurrection and judgement however, are (imho) misapplied (for example Matt. 24-25).

I don't think there is anything in Revelation that hasn't already occurred, except maybe 20:11-15.

The destruction of the "elements" by fire and the "new heavens and earth"?
Already happened (it refers to the Mosaic/Levitical system).

Post by **_Sean** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:46 am

Ely wrote:I thought I'd "resurrect" this old thread

Can I ask, what is it that stops amillennlialists/partial preterists from becoming "fully-realised." In other words, what prophecies do you look at and think "there is no way that this has already been fulfilled"?

I could add 1 Corinthians 15 to the list.

Post by **_Paidion** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:24 pm

Even I am a partial preterist with regard to Matthew 24 and Revelation.

In Matthew 24, I believe our Lord's reference to the destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D. However, I think the rest of it is yet to be fulfilled, including the tribulation period, and the coming of Christ which follows it.

In Revelation, I believe our Lord's letters to the 7 churches were addressed to churches in John's day, and dealt with conditions that applied to those churches at that time. The rest of the events depicted in Revelation will occur in the future, though it is difficult or impossible to state precisely what those events will be, as they were represented to John in visions.

Post by **_Jim from covina** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 5:54 pm

[quote="Ely"]I thought I'd "resurrect" this old thread

I am glad you did Ely. I came from dispensationalist to partial pret. with the help of Steve Gregg.....and now think i am leaning full pret.

I too am trying to figure out what verses demonstrate clearly that there is an additional coming of Christ (assuming 70 a.d. was), or if that was it, and we just misunderstand what his coming meant. But i am sincerely desiring to think this through.

But i am a bit troubled and/or confused by a couple of statements.

Steve said.....
These people don't believe in a future second coming of Christ, or any other future events that most of us believe to be associated with the end of the present world. This view is generally regarded as heretical, since the second coming of Christ at the end of the world has been part of Christian belief since the earliest centuries, and was attested by all the fathers of the church. This view is also, in my judgment, contrary to the teaching of scripture.

I think if there was a future coming, it would be a third coming, by their view, so i feel that description is a bit misleading. Re: the idea that its heretical because of the testimony of the fathers of the church, bothers me. Irenaeus believed Jesus was 50 years old when he started his ministry, but we dont esteem that. The church fathers do not dictate what is orthodox, albeit i am sure it is good to study them and hold them high, but no higher than any other man. They also had many odd views......one just has to think of Origen and tertullian. How is it we anyone can determine what is a good view of theirs and what isnt. It is usually done by what somebody ALREADY believes. That is not a good method. Lastly, steve said that it is contrary to scripture. But this is what really has confused me. The scripture is FULL of time references.........I know, its Gods timing, not ours. That i believe, in all honesty and humility, a horrible answer. It seems to me that people say that because the Parousia of the Lord being "at Hand", and "near", etc, does NOT fit their paradigm................AGAIN, that doesnt seem to be good hermeneutics.

So therefore, it seems fair to say that the burden is on anyone to argue that their is a future coming of Christ.

I do agree, MORT, with Acts 1:11 seems a bit troubling, but i am not sure what else............

I will look at those other verses again, mort........but i have gone through these before, and did not feel swayed.

Also, my big hangup, or not, is the fact of the time references. It seems to me that any first century person reading the n.t. without our 21st century presuppositions would accept the meaning of those words that the "End" was at hand, etc... Why would God speak to us in language we would NOT understand?? He didnt do that before with other time references.

I am thinking that maybe its OUR misunderstanding of what the Coming was supposed to be, rather than the only other valid conclusion that Peter, Paul, James, JOhn, and JESUS, were wrong. I dont know if there is an option there for holding to inspiration if thats the case.

sorry this is so long, but maybe we can have a fruitful discussion now that i have laid out whats on my mind/heart.

jim d.