Amillenialism/Partial Preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
Hey guys, I haven't posted in awhile, but I thought this might be a good place to ask the question:

I understand amillenialism and partial preterism, however, could you guys help me understand how these can coincide and/or cannot coincide within the same view?

(I ask that you don't respond with harsh or exaggerated answers, which lead nowhere. For example: because neither is true or because postmillenialism is true. I am here to understand the two views clearly and how they do or do not coincide together). Thank you.
 
I hold to both Amillennialism and Partial Preterism, and I believe they do coincide. Basically, I view the church as semi-eschatological. In other words, 1 Cor 15: 23-35 gives us the two-stage program for the church age. Jesus Christ the first fruits, (stage one) and those that are his at His coming (stage 2) The church age which is between those two events is under the cross Act 14:22; John 16:33; 18:36; Luke 9:23; 14:27; 2 Tim. 4:18;. My preterism deals more with the eternal establishment of the church in AD70.

VanVos
 
WRT to millenial positions, in "Last Days According to Jesus" R.C. Sproul writes that "some form of preterism could conceivably be incorporated into all of them. One possible exception is Dispensationalism, although with certain modifications it could fit in even there." p. 201.

I don't know if this helps you any, but I think you'll find that a good number will be amil and partial preterist.
 
From my own experience, I came to the position of partial preterism before I was Postmillenial. The two positons came from different exegetical considerations. So I think that preterism could be totally consistent with an amillennial view. In fact, I held that very position for a time.
 
I wonder if the amil "Israel to Christ" transferrence hermeneutic would be more consistent if it applied Christ's prophecies concerning Israel to Himself rather than look for an extra-biblical fulfilment in the events of AD 70.

Thoughts?
 
I don't believe that Dispensational premillenialism can be consistent with partial preterism, but I may be confusing myself here. I assume that partial preterists (which I would consider myself) assume an early date for the writing of Revelation (AD mid 60s) as opposed to a late date. If I'm wrong, kindly point me to an essay where the dating of Revelation is not germane.
 
Originally posted by armourbearer
I wonder if the amil "Israel to Christ" transferrence hermeneutic would be more consistent if it applied Christ's prophecies concerning Israel to Himself rather than look for an extra-biblical fulfilment in the events of AD 70.

Thoughts?

Could you explain this "israel to Christ' transferrence hermeneutic? I have never heard of it before.
 
Originally posted by beej6
I don't believe that Dispensational premillenialism can be consistent with partial preterism, but I may be confusing myself here. I assume that partial preterists (which I would consider myself) assume an early date for the writing of Revelation (AD mid 60s) as opposed to a late date. If I'm wrong, kindly point me to an essay where the dating of Revelation is not germane.

I think that's right which is why Sproul wrote that partial preterism would require some modification to fit within a dispensational scheme.
 
Originally posted by Romans922
Originally posted by armourbearer
I wonder if the amil "Israel to Christ" transferrence hermeneutic would be more consistent if it applied Christ's prophecies concerning Israel to Himself rather than look for an extra-biblical fulfilment in the events of AD 70.

Thoughts?

Could you explain this "israel to Christ' transferrence hermeneutic? I have never heard of it before.

Because amillennialism is realised millennialism, it understands Christ to be the true Israel of which the prophets foretold suffering and glory. So rather than a literal resurrecting of the land, temple, sacrifices, etc., amil teaches that these are fulfilled in Christ and the church.

Relating this to our Lord's judgment oracles -- it is likely that Christ foretold His death, resurrection and coming again in the same terminology the prophets employed with relation to Israel's fall and rise.
 
Because amillennialism is realised millennialism, it understands Christ to be the true Israel of which the prophets foretold suffering and glory. So rather than a literal resurrecting of the land, temple, sacrifices, etc., amil teaches that these are fulfilled in Christ and the church.

Relating this to our Lord's judgment oracles -- it is likely that Christ foretold His death, resurrection and coming again in the same terminology the prophets employed with relation to Israel's fall and rise.

Now there was another ahha moment for me!
 
Okay, I'm reading Gary DeMar and he's saying that the "two ages" are the old covenant (which involved national Israel) and the new age of the church. Whereas amils believe that the "two ages" correspond to this age(partially) and the age still to come (which is here already in some ways).

I was just wondering how those two go together myself.
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Okay, I'm reading Gary DeMar and he's saying that the "two ages" are the old covenant (which involved national Israel) and the new age of the church. Whereas amils believe that the "two ages" correspond to this age(partially) and the age still to come (which is here already in some ways).

He is probably just using the language in a different context. I don't believe it is wise to speak about the church as a separate age given dispie dichotomising of kingdom and church. But so far as movement between OT eschatology and NT fulfilment is concerned, God's blessings, which were seen within the national context, are now poured out upon the nations, while the children of the kingdom are shut out. That itself would be cataclysmic, and it is not surprising that it is described in terms of cosmic upheaval.
 
I believe that just about every OT prophecy of land, temple, sacrafices is fulfilled in Christ and the Christian Church (with a healthy dose of prophecies concerning a yet future latter day glory) but virtually every old Reformed interpreter believes the predictions of Mat 24; lk 21; mrk 13 are to some extent literally fulfilled in AD 70 and I've never heard that Christ or the church is some how symbolized in these sufferings. Am I ignorant or just mistaken in what you are saying Rev Winzer?
 
You are neither ignorant nor mistaken, Peter. From Eusebius onwards it has been customary to apply our Lord's words to national Israel. But on this point, as with literal historicism in the Apocalypse, I am constrained reluctantly to disagree with my Reformed and Puritan teachers. While I can acknowledge an "application" to certain historical events, the "interpretation" of the passages requires biblical substantiation.
 
I am interested in your ideas Rev Winzer though I am inclined to take the historical approach. I am even somewhat sympathetic to the idea that ALL of our Lord's words on the Mt. of Olives were literally fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. What is your view of Dan 9:26,27? Do you believe that the Pope is the correct "interpretation" of 2The 2. or just an application? If you would like to discuss prophecy on the internet please consider joining this Yahoo group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Historicism/
 
Peter, I am not a literal historicism advocate, so I will have to decline joining the group. As my previous post indicated, I can draw a line between interpretation and application. I don't believe that line was always properly recognised by Reformed and Puritan writers.

Concerning Dan. 9:26ff, I consider the traditional interpretation adequate because it centred upon Christic fulfilment. But the reference to abominations never found literal fulfilment in the Roman siege, so it is a stretch to interpret the Holy Ghost as foresignifying such.

I regard 2 Thess. 2 as applying to the Papacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top