# True Preterism: Orthodox or Partial?



## InSixDays (Jun 19, 2005)

Something I've been thinking about of late as I read posts on the board is that people keep refering to the orthodox version of preterism as "partial preterism."

However, isn't this conceding ground to the enemy? It is the unorthodox hyper-preterists who refer to the orthodox preterists as being "partial." And this term has stuck. But partial, as a word, means incomplete. It implies that those who are partial preterists are inconsistant or incomplete in their thinking or interpretations.

Just so you know, the hyper-preterists are using this to gain followers. I should know, having been a hyper-preterist in the past (who, thankfully to Gentry and others came to my senses). The argument is, there are a lot of preterists around, but some of them are partial preterists. They can't argue with the time texts but are unwilling to give up the rigorous dogma of tradition, so they purposefully remain inconsistant. I bought it. I mean, let's face it, who wants to be inconsistant in their thinking?

Because ultimately, the partial preterists are not being incomplete in their thinking, they are being orthodox. They understand the difference between the biblical references to Christ's coming in judgment against Israel in A.D. 70 and the Second advent. Thus, it is not the "partial preterist" who is inconsistant, it is the hyper-preterist for misunderstanding the difference and being inconsistant in that way. They take it too far, beyond the bounds of sense and the Bible.

So I have started calling partial preterists "orthodox preterists," or "true preterists." One person even refered to it as "covenantal preterism."

You may certainly continue to refer to orthodox preterists as partial preterists. I'm not telling us we need to change that. It is merely a humble suggestion. 

Adam


----------



## bigheavyq (Jun 19, 2005)

good points


----------

