# partial vs. full preterist



## mshingler (May 27, 2008)

I see a number of threads where someone states that they are a "partial-preterist." I wonder if someone can help me understand the difference between partial preterism and full preterism? Is partial preterism a somewhat fluid term, meaning different things to different people? Is there a semi-standard definition?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2008)

lots of info here-

http://www.preteristsite.com/faq.html

I'm a Partial Preterist btw, a better term is orthodox preterist! (I used to be hard core dispensational!)


----------



## Davidius (May 27, 2008)

I believe that Preterists understand all of biblical prophecy to have already been fulfilled, while Partial-Preterists believe that some of it was fulfilled in 70 AD but not all.


----------



## KMK (May 27, 2008)

I object to the terms 'partial' and 'full' preterist. 'Orthodox' and 'Unorthodox' would be better.

The hyper-preterist (unorthodox) would love for us to call him 'full' preterist because that makes him sound more consistant than the orthodox preterist. Every we time we refer to the unorthodox view as 'full' or or the orthodox view as 'partial' we are playing right into their hands.


----------



## Davidius (May 27, 2008)

He also wanted to know what the groups believe.


----------



## mshingler (May 27, 2008)

So is there any essential difference between "full-preterist" and "hyper-preterist", other than the obvious difference in the connotations of the 2 terms?


----------



## KMK (May 27, 2008)

mshingler said:


> So is there any essential difference between "full-preterist" and "hyper-preterist", other than the obvious difference in the connotations of the 2 terms?



Not that I know of. You can check out a number of past threads but it appears that the one thing that makes the hp 'hyper' is the assertion that the resurrection has already passed.


----------



## mshingler (May 27, 2008)

That helps me out. I was thinking in 3 different categories - partial, full, hyper. 
Now, would it be fair to say that there are different "levels" of partial-preterism? (Think, maybe, Kim Riddlebarger vs. Gary DeMar.) Or, would Riddlebarger not be considered even partial-preterist?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 27, 2008)

Partial-Preterist checking in for duty.

_Orthodox_-Preterist for KMK


----------



## KMK (May 27, 2008)

mshingler said:


> That helps me out. I was thinking in 3 different categories - partial, full, hyper.
> Now, would it be fair to say that there are different "levels" of partial-preterism? (Think, maybe, Kim Riddlebarger vs. Gary DeMar.) Or, would Riddlebarger not be considered even partial-preterist?



I would say yes. I have been surprised by the variety of orthodox positions.

See these recent threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/do-some-preterists-believe-fulness-gentiles-came-before-70-ad-31983/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/what-prevents-preterist-becoming-hyper-30893/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/do-...m-parables-have-already-been-fulfilled-32044/


----------



## unlearnedlearner (May 28, 2008)

mshingler said:


> I see a number of threads where someone states that they are a "partial-preterist." I wonder if someone can help me understand the difference between partial preterism and full preterism? Is partial preterism a somewhat fluid term, meaning different things to different people? Is there a semi-standard definition?



Orthodox vs. Unorthodox are good prefixes.

The fundamental difference between the two is that the Orthodox affirm that Jesus will come bodily and that the resurrection is of the body, understood as being the physical body you have, much like Christ's self-same body entered the tomb and came out again.

Within Orthodox Preterists there are differences in understanding a division in Mt. 24:36+ to the rest of the discourse, so some may see Mt. 25 as fulfilled in AD 70, but others do not. All, however, agree that Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead and that the dead shall rise. The "standard" usually revolves around the timing of the "Great Tribulation".

Within the Unorthodox Preterists, they would make a distinction between hyper & full. The hyper seeing everything as past, the church, sacraments, etc., but the later see ongoing significance for the church, sacraments, etc., almost more of an idealist approach on these things and the ongoing fulfillment of "prophecies", at least the nature of the kingdom.


----------



## KMK (May 28, 2008)

unlearnedlearner said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> > I see a number of threads where someone states that they are a "partial-preterist." I wonder if someone can help me understand the difference between partial preterism and full preterism? Is partial preterism a somewhat fluid term, meaning different things to different people? Is there a semi-standard definition?
> ...



 Good definitions.

I don't see how an unorthodox preterist could NOT come to the conclusion that the sacraments are past. If we are really resurrected, why baptize in the hope of a future resurrection? If Jesus said, "Do this till I come," and He has indeed come, why partake of the Lord's Supper?

Just another note. BMD's definitions are good but the implications of these conclusions run so deep that it causes the unorthodox preterist to twist nearly all of the NT Scripture. For example, because many preterists argue that Paul was not saved when he wrote his epistles because the resurrection was still future for him.


----------

