# Question for Partial Preterists



## Jon Peters (Aug 24, 2009)

Do all partial preterists divide the Olivet Discourse between AD 70 and the second coming (I believe at about vs 36)? I was under the impression this was the case but would appreciate a clarification.


----------



## Jon Peters (Aug 24, 2009)

*bump*

I thought at least one PP would chime in. Anybody?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 24, 2009)

Well Marcellus Kik divided it at verse 36, and I follow that. There are a number of things that point to the discourse moving on to a different subject. one of the most notable being time referents.

There may be siome partial preterists that have tried to push it further. i don't see that that's biblical or even feasible.

I'll check out some material.

This from the Preterist Archive, which by its layout would seem to want to give the impression that all preterists, not just Hymenaens (Hyper-Preterists) are nutty. I believe that the runner(s) of this site have stepped back from the heresy of full-preterism. But there is still a full range of material - including godless, full-preterism - available there.

They organise people's eschatological views into 

(a) Futurists

(b) Historical Preterists - a form of Partial Preterism

(c) Modern Preterists - a form of Partial Preterism

(d) Hyper Preterists - full-preterism, a heretical doctrine

The first three are orthodox regarding the basic truths. Apparently modern preterists including Gentry and De Mar are willing to eat into Matthew 25 as speaking about past events. In a book about a comparison of "(4or 5?) Views of the Book of Revelation" I noticed that Gentry put everything up to revelation 19 into the First Century, which seems over the top to me, and less true to the text In my humble opinion.

It seems to be slippery slope for some unstable souls. It was, apparently, for David Chilton.

Human beings can be people of ungodly extremes. I think some people get carried away with preterism, not just hyper-preterists. Because it fits so well for some things, they may try and see it fit for (almost) everything.


*From the Preterist Archive*
_MODERN PRETERISM (MP) - A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that the majority of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John. Differs from Full Preterism in that it does not make the Parousia, the General Judgment, nor the General Resurrection events solely of the past. B) According to known literature, this class emerged during the Reformation or Counter Reformation and can be seen in a fully developed form at the beginning of the 17th century in the writings of the Jesuit Alcasar -- although many believe that the "Preterist Assumption" seen throughout church history reveals the ancient and medieval equivalents of the Modern Preterist view. (systematized the most notably perhaps in 310 by Eusebius in "Theophany"). This classification includes many who were formerly classified as partial preterists (such as Gary DeMar and Dr. John Brown of Edinburgh) -- as their views are a much more complete presentation of the prophetic fulfillment than those classified in Historical Preterism. C) Teaches that the bulk of Bible eschatology has sole application to ancient Israel, but that some regards the "last day" -- sometimes that "end" being personal, not historical, in nature. Transitions somewhere in Matthew 25, or near the end of the Apocalypse of John._

_HISTORICAL PRETERISM (HP) - A) Umbrella term covering all those who believe that only a slight amount of Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled in the early centuries of the Christian era. Determined by looking at where authors find a "transition" from the past to the future using the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24/25 and the Apocalypse of John. B) This class has roots dating back to the first century, such as in the writings of Barnabus and Clement, and finds greater development in the writings of Justin Martyr and Eusebius. The Catholic and Orthodox churches maintained HP through the Middle Ages. Today's contemporary forms were largely developed in the writings of Calvin, Luther, Grotius and Lightfoot. C) Teaches that some of the Bible's eschatology was fulfilled by AD70, but that a large portion is yet to be fulfilled at the "last day." Transitions in the Middle of Matthew 24, or in the Middle of the Apocalypse of John._


----------



## Nathan Riese (Aug 24, 2009)

I do not believe that ALL do, because there are always exceptions to every rule. As far as I know in my (very) limited experience is that most believe it to be a transition of topic at verse 36. There's a good explanation of it in the May 21, 2008 podcast on nicenecouncil.com with Dr. Kenneth Gentry, Jr. 

http://nicenecouncil.com/media/podcast/Great_Tribulation_Future_or_Past.mp3


----------

