# Partial Preterism and the Second Coming of Christ



## MSH (Nov 17, 2020)

Many of the passages of Scripture that are commonly used as proof texts to form the argument for a bodily second coming of Christ are seen by the PP’s to be fulfilled before 70 A.D. 

With that being said, what is the basic argument and proof texts for the PP’s position for a visible and bodily return of Christ? 

I do not wish for this thread to turn into a debate on the PP position itself. 

Thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 17, 2020)

Depending on who you ask: Acts 1, 1 Thessalonians 4 (the alleged rapture passage!), and from Matthew 24:36 on, John 14.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 17, 2020)

Do partial preterism believe that Christ came back _bodily_ in 70 AD? I had always thought that was full preterism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 17, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Do partial preterism believe that Christ came back _bodily_ in 70 AD? I had always thought that was full preterism.


I think he is saying that preterists of whatever stripe have tended to see that some of the "classical proof texts" of the second advent are regarded as fulfilled, i.e. the early part of Matthew 24.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Nov 17, 2020)

Dr Ken Gentry made a believer (in PP) out of R.C. Sproul. Here in this video series Dr Gentry states his case;






An Interesting Video Series on Partial Preterism, By Dr. Ken Gentry


I'm too new to The Book Of Revelation to have a definite theological conviction, but I must say I found Dr. Ken Gentry's presentation on partial Preterism very convincing. The first three vids, parts 1,2, and 3 are on The Book Of Revelation, and the last vid, from the same venue, is on 2nd...




www.puritanboard.com





Watch them in the order that they are posted in, top to bottom. Fascinating exegesis ... made a believer out of me as well.

I watched a vid of G.K. Beale the other night where he draws a distinction between full Preterism, and Partial. The full believes that the second coming happened in 70AD, while the partial believes that 70AD was a precursor.






Listen to the first 7 minutes at least to see the distinction between Full Preterist, and Partial. He says that if you're PP you are not in heresy, but if you are FP, and do not believe in a 2nd coming, there is a problem.


----------



## MSH (Nov 17, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> Depending on who you ask: Acts 1, 1 Thessalonians 4 (the alleged rapture passage!), and from Matthew 24:36 on, John 14.



Thanks. Though some preterist would say all of Matthew 24 is referring to 70A.D. Those that break up the chapter into now and not yet usually do so because they believe the disciples were asking a question about the Temple and His future bodily return. PP’s disagree here, e.g., Gary Demar and Ken Gentry. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Nov 17, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Do partial preterism believe that Christ came back _bodily_ in 70 AD? I had always thought that was full preterism.



PP’s believe his coming was one of judgment in 70AD and not his bodily return. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MSH (Nov 17, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> I think he is saying that preterists of whatever stripe have tended to see that some of the "classical proof texts" of the second advent are regarded as fulfilled, i.e. the early part of Matthew 24.



This^^^

PP still believe in the visible bodily return of Christ. It’s just let’s say, they may have less ammo for their argument, or at least they lack some of the typical proof texts. 

I am basically looking for the strongest argument that the PP has left for the visible bodily return of Christ given that they have jettisoned many of the typical proof texts used in this regard for the judgment of 70 AD. 

Again, I don’t wish wish for this thread to drift to a defense of or the explanation of the PP position. I would like to hear from PP themselves give their arguments for the bodily return of Christ in our future. 

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 19, 2020)

MSH said:


> Thanks. Though some preterist would say all of Matthew 24 is referring to 70A.D. Those that break up the chapter into now and not yet usually do so because they believe the disciples were asking a question about the Temple and His future bodily return. PP’s disagree here, e.g., Gary Demar and Ken Gentry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



How are you defining Partial Preterism? Do you simply mean "not Futurism"? I ask because the view that Matthew 24 up to verse 35 is referring primarily to AD 70 is a standard view in Historicism, not at all unique to Preterists.


----------

