Partial Preterism heresy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
A Lutheran fellow(who happens to know alot about and even leans reformed) on another board claims that Partial Preterism is heresy.


It is modern liberal Scripture twisting, started by the Jesuits. It all hinges on an impossible dating of the book of Rev. which ALL reputable scholars (and Eusebius and other early fathers affirm) agree was written in the 90sAD, where Christ has clearly not yet returned. The preterists claim he came back in 70 AD (spiritual for some, finally for others). NO confession in the history of the church ever claimed Christ came back in any way in 70 AD. The Mormons, of course believe this heresy as well claiming he came back to preach to the American Indians (how did they rate and no one else in the world did--could it be because Joseph Smith happened to be living in the North America at the time...).
Click to expand...

Does anybody have anything to say here?

If anybody here would like to come to this other discussion board, then please send me a private message with your email address, and I will send you an invite. Anyone here is welcome, but I didn't really want to make it public. It is a board for confessional Christians.

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by raderag]
 
reading assignment

This fellow desperately needs to read Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" which refutes his allegations about the Fathers and "reputable" scholars. His attempt to equate partial preterism with Mormonism is simply ridiculous slander, not worthy of a Christian.
 
Originally posted by Fernando
This fellow desperately needs to read Kenneth Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" which refutes his allegations about the Fathers and "reputable" scholars. His attempt to equate partial preterism with Mormonism is simply ridiculous slander, not worthy of a Christian.
Click to expand...

It is from a VERY educated person, but I agree with your sentiments. Send me a PM if you would like to dialog with him.

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by raderag]
 
I am put off by his arrogance. This is question begging garbage that commits more fallacies than I care to count. Sorry to sound abrupt on this but I am really getting annoyed at people calling me a heretic and then get my position wrong.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I am put off by his arrogance. This is question begging garbage that commits more fallacies than I care to count. Sorry to sound abrupt on this but I am really getting annoyed at people calling me a heretic and then get my position wrong.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and I understand. I would love if you would come participate.
 
I am not a fan of any kind of preterism by any means. However, it is clear, is it not, that there is a significant difference between full and partial preterism. The former denies the future coming of Christ and the latter affirms it, among other differences. The former I would agree (and so would my friend Paul Manata, I believe) is heresy.

If one critiquing the position can't distinguish between the two positions, then the critique is unfair and unjust.

Incidentally, as a historicist, I do indeed believe that Christ came in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I am not a fan of any kind of preterism by any means. However, it is clear, is it not, that there is a significant difference between full and partial preterism. The former denies the future coming of Christ and the latter affirms it, among other differences. The former I would agree (and so would my friend Paul Manata, I believe) is heresy.

If one critiquing the position can't distinguish between the two positions, then the critique is unfair and unjust.

Incidentally, as a historicist, I do indeed believe that Christ came in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and I tend to agree.
 
I just read a very bad critique of Hanegraff's new book (not that I care for him as a theologian) in Liberty U's journal. The author, like the Lutheran above, committed the fallacy of equivocation with a vengeance, not to mention ad hominem, poisoning the well, etc.
 
Originally posted by raderag
A Lutheran fellow(who happens to know alot about and even leans reformed) on another board claims that Partial Preterism is heresy.


It is modern liberal Scripture twisting, started by the Jesuits. It all hinges on an impossible dating of the book of Rev. which ALL reputable scholars (and Eusebius and other early fathers affirm) agree was written in the 90sAD, where Christ has clearly not yet returned. The preterists claim he came back in 70 AD (spiritual for some, finally for others). NO confession in the history of the church ever claimed Christ came back in any way in 70 AD. The Mormons, of course believe this heresy as well claiming he came back to preach to the American Indians (how did they rate and no one else in the world did--could it be because Joseph Smith happened to be living in the North America at the time...).
Click to expand...

Does anybody have anything to say here?

If anybody here would like to come to this other discussion board, then please send me a private message with your email address, and I will send you an invite. Anyone here is welcome, but I didn't really want to make it public. It is a board for confessional Christians.

[Edited on 5-10-2005 by raderag]
Click to expand...

Is he (or you?) simply mistaking full-preterism for preterism? The parallel with Joseph Smith suggests that he doesn't grasp the preterist position at all. The "coming" in judgment in ad70 is far from claiming that he showed up with a special revelation beyond what he himself said would occur, namely 'not one stone...this generation'.

1. Liberal Scripture twisting? Is this really the case? There is definitely liberal Scripture twisting, including a non-bodily advent, but this has nothing to do with preterism.

2. Dating of Revelation? I'm not going to pretend when things are dated, it is well beyond me, but reading through the debates (and given my eschatological presuppositions), I believe that a pre-ad70 dating fits the best.

3. No confession in the history of the Church claims that God 'came' in judgment on Edom (Well, I haven't read every confession), but an argument from silence is pretty bad. A better argument would be, every Creed and Confession in the history of the Church points to a bodily advent.

4. "Spiritually for some, finally for others." What? No, I don't.

5. Share the site, so a greater context can be had.

openairboy
 
If anybody here would like to come to this other discussion board, then please send me a private message with your email address, and I will send you an invite. Anyone here is welcome, but I didn't really want to make it public. It is a board for confessional Christians.
Click to expand...

He is very knowlegable, so no he is not mistaken.

Its a yahoo group called ReformedConcepts. I send you an U2U to subscribe.
 
To paraphrase Patrick Henry"

If partial-preterism is heresy (to which I adhere),
Then let's make the most of it!

Let the anathemas come!
 
Well, I agree with most of what he said. All except PP being heresy, grave error which precipitated the spread of popery into protestantism (liturgicalism, FV, etc) for sure, but heresy goes too far. And I dont really get his point with regard to the Mormanism bit.:um:
 
Originally posted by Peter
Well, I agree with most of what he said. All except PP being heresy, grave error which precipitated the spread of popery into protestantism (liturgicalism, FV, etc) for sure, but heresy goes too far. And I dont really get his point with regard to the Mormanism bit.:um:
Click to expand...


WOW! People will connect whatever dots they want.

Peter, you don't find it a strange irony that you are blaming preterism with the rise of "liturgicalism" and, yet, you are in agreement with a Lutheran's critique? How does that come together? How did the Lutheran end up in his liturgical service? Where did the grave error in his system creep in?

openairboy

[Edited on 5-12-2005 by openairboy]
 
First Covenantal Presuppositionalism, then this...
Actually,
The liturgical services of the FV churches are more due to the works of people like Jordan and Meyers (The Lord's Service).
 
As far as scholar's go and the dating of Revelation here is a qoute from Schaff: "On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

Which I got from this link/list: http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/r/revelation_earlydate.html
 
Thanks for the Schaff quote!

For anyone who wants to read a full book-length treatment of the dating of Revelation, showing that it was written pre-70 A.D., I highly recommend "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry Jr.

You can read the book for FREE online here: http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

That page has a link to read the book in PDF format, and another link to read the book in HTML format. The book is very detailed, and is excellent!

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
I haven't read Gentry's book yet. I listened to EB Elliot's refutation of preteresm and he was very thorough. I'm reading DeMar's Last Days Madness and I really WANT to be a preterist but I can't get past the early dating. Ireneus is a very important source regarding the date. Elliot buries the early date theory in his book.
 
Originally posted by maxdetail
I haven't read Gentry's book yet. I listened to EB Elliot's refutation of preteresm and he was very thorough. I'm reading DeMar's Last Days Madness and I really WANT to be a preterist but I can't get past the early dating. Ireneus is a very important source regarding the date. Elliot buries the early date theory in his book.
Click to expand...

Refutation of preterism, or partial-preterism?

On the early dating thing:
My Greek professor in college held valiantly to a 96A.D. date, but excluding some of Revelation, he viewed the rest of NT prophecy through partial-preterism lenses.

[Edited on 6--14-05 by Draught Horse]
 
Right Jacob, I believe Matthew 24 is talking about the destruction of the temple and I'm down with the rest of the preterist interpretive methodology. It's the early dating of Revelation and it's ramifications I have a problem with.
 
No prob. The site is a goldmine of good stuff. That's not Paul's voice, btw. But they have audio on about everything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Partial Preterism & Amillenniumism
Replies
6
Views
3K
Scott1
Scott1
Romans922
  • Locked
Amillenialism/Partial Preterism
Replies
15
Views
7K
MW
M
RoderickE
  • Locked
Is Partial-Preterism a Problem?
Replies
8
Views
11K
py3ak
py3ak
S
Postmil Without Partial Preterism
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
sovereigngrace
S
I
  • Locked
Partial Preterism vs. Amillennialism
Replies
8
Views
16K
tdowns
tdowns
Back
Top