New to Orthodox Preterism. Would like some clarification.

[RBerman]

It's impossible. You're being silly. You can't be a futurist and preterist at the same time because the two are mutually exclusive. If you believe unfulfilled prophecy will happen in between 70 CE and the parousia, then you're a futurist. This option contradicts preterism, partial or hyper.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Ask around to see how other people understand the "partial" in "partial preterism." You've got a couple of responses already.

[eschaton]

Understood. But to my understanding they don't base anything that is unfulfilled prophecy between 70CE and the parousia. Correct? Anything that has to do with Revelation, the OD, Daniel, or the other OT prophecies about Israel, punishment, apocalypses has been fulfilled other than the parousia and subsequent judgment.

I think that's mostly correct, but I do think some partials would allow for limited fulfillments before the parousia, but they can answer that better than I can.

[seanD]

I think that's mostly correct, but I do think some partials would allow for limited fulfillments before the parousia, but they can answer that better than I can.

IMO, that just obfuscates the differences between futurism and preterism. If a preterist believes that unfulfilled prophecy is yet to be accomplished between 70 CE and the parousia, then there would be no need for the term "futurism." It's sort of looking more like this is done just to avoid the stigma of being a futurist. Kind of like theistic evolutionists avoid the stigma of being a YEC creationist.

[eschaton]

Maybe so.

[RBerman]

IMO, that just obfuscates the differences between futurism and preterism. If a preterist believes that unfulfilled prophecy is yet to be accomplished between 70 CE and the parousia, then there would be no need for the term "futurism." It's sort of looking more like this is done just to avoid the stigma of being a futurist. Kind of like theistic evolutionists avoid the stigma of being a YEC creationist.

You give futurism a lot of social credit, to think that preterists would monkey with labels just so they could feel like they are "in the club." In reality, partial preterists see no particular cachet associated with the term "futurism" and no stigma associated with "preterism." I suppose it may seem like obfuscation for you to discover that the situation has substantially more nuance than you realized. But you evince a bad habit of accusing people of being deliberately confusing or shady. You'd be better off assuming that people are acting with integrity but either are confused, or are poor explainers. Or perhaps the problem might even lie on your end of the phone.

[seanD]

You give futurism a lot of social credit, to think that preterists would monkey with labels just so they could feel like they are "in the club." In reality, partial preterists see no particular cachet associated with the term "futurism" and no stigma associated with "preterism." I suppose it may seem like obfuscation for you to discover that the situation has substantially more nuance than you realized. But you evince a bad habit of accusing people of being deliberately confusing or shady. You'd be better off assuming that people are acting with integrity but either are confused, or are poor explainers. Or perhaps the problem might even lie on your end of the phone.

I took a few courses in behavioral science so now I’m an expert in my own mind on human psychology Since you accuse me of having a “suspicious intent” of others, I feel obligated to correct your error at length here. Human psychology is a very easy thing to predict, and doesn’t mean we as humans are “shady” or “deliberately confusing,” it just means we typically follow certain behavior patterns that can be identified, particularly within groups, such as cognitive dissonance. Assuming one’s opinion of others is somehow negatively “suspicious” of others just reflects the suspicion in your own views. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion that Christians, especially the younger generation who are in universities, would want to separate themselves from the herd of creationists who are persistently vilified as ignorant, backwards-thinking, unintelligent, kooky, non-credible, in order to relieve that unpleasant pressure one has to endure in that experience, and would thus identify themselves with a label that is more acceptable among their peers and less challenging to popular secular norms. This is also most likely why TEers consistently attack YECers with the same vigor and viciousness as their atheistic peers, which is the natural pattern of behavior we would expect. I mean this stuff is just elementary psychology really. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion about eschatological stigmas in this same regard and why it would only be natural that Christians would want to distance themselves from being categorized with the slew of dispensational kooks throughout the centuries that have jumped the gun and made themselves look bad. And this seems to be more so the case with someone who is wavering between both views but clings to a preterist view even though it’s not at all compatible. I also have no reason to assume your view is the norm among preterists based on the fact that preterists and futurists have never had a cozy relationship, ever, which makes no sense at all if preterists openly considered the possibilities of futurist interpretations as you have done here. So this tells me your view is certainly NOT the norm, hence it looks like you could entertain the idea of future prophecy, but then hide behind the cloak of preterism once the pressure mounts when kooks like Camping make their splash on the public scene, not because of any “ill intent” on your part but just because of human nature. But I was careful to say “it seems” which distinguishes something that is fact and something that is possible based on observation.

[RBerman]

I took a few courses in behavioral science so now I’m an expert in my own mind on human psychology

Heh. OK, two points for self-deprecation.

Since you accuse me of having a “suspicious intent” of others, I feel obligated to correct your error at length here. Human psychology is a very easy thing to predict, and doesn’t mean we as humans are “shady” or “deliberately confusing,” it just means we typically follow certain behavior patterns that can be identified, particularly within groups, such as cognitive dissonance. Assuming one’s opinion of others is somehow negatively “suspicious” of others just reflects the suspicion in your own views. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion that Christians, especially the younger generation who are in universities, would want to separate themselves from the herd of creationists who are persistently vilified as ignorant, backwards-thinking, unintelligent, kooky, non-credible, in order to relieve that unpleasant pressure one has to endure in that experience, and would thus identify themselves with a label that is more acceptable among their peers and less challenging to popular secular norms. This is also most likely why TEers consistently attack YECers with the same vigor and viciousness as their atheistic peers, which is the natural pattern of behavior we would expect. I mean this stuff is just elementary psychology really. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion about eschatological stigmas in this same regard and why it would only be natural that Christians would want to distance themselves from being categorized with the slew of dispensational kooks throughout the centuries that have jumped the gun and made themselves look bad. And this seems to be more so the case with someone who is wavering between both views but clings to a preterist view even though it’s not at all compatible. I also have no reason to assume your view is the norm among preterists based on the fact that preterists and futurists have never had a cozy relationship, ever, which makes no sense at all if preterists openly considered the possibilities of futurist interpretations as you have done here. So this tells me your view is certainly NOT the norm, hence it looks like you could entertain the idea of future prophecy, but then hide behind the cloak of preterism once the pressure mounts when kooks like Camping make their splash on the public scene, not because of any “ill intent” on your part but just because of human nature. But I was careful to say “it seems” which distinguishes something that is fact and something that is possible based on observation.

This whole dissertation is founded on your belief that preterism and futurism are incompatible, when really they lie at the extremes of a spectrum between full (i.e. heretical) preterism and full futurism. As to whether my view is the norm for preterists, I'm content to let you interview other preterists to see how common is my perspective.

[mickeythemouse]

I took a few courses in behavioral science so now I’m an expert in my own mind on human psychology Since you accuse me of having a “suspicious intent” of others, I feel obligated to correct your error at length here. Human psychology is a very easy thing to predict, and doesn’t mean we as humans are “shady” or “deliberately confusing,” it just means we typically follow certain behavior patterns that can be identified, particularly within groups, such as cognitive dissonance. Assuming one’s opinion of others is somehow negatively “suspicious” of others just reflects the suspicion in your own views. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion that Christians, especially the younger generation who are in universities, would want to separate themselves from the herd of creationists who are persistently vilified as ignorant, backwards-thinking, unintelligent, kooky, non-credible, in order to relieve that unpleasant pressure one has to endure in that experience, and would thus identify themselves with a label that is more acceptable among their peers and less challenging to popular secular norms. This is also most likely why TEers consistently attack YECers with the same vigor and viciousness as their atheistic peers, which is the natural pattern of behavior we would expect. I mean this stuff is just elementary psychology really. It’s not hard to come to a conclusion about eschatological stigmas in this same regard and why it would only be natural that Christians would want to distance themselves from being categorized with the slew of dispensational kooks throughout the centuries that have jumped the gun and made themselves look bad. And this seems to be more so the case with someone who is wavering between both views but clings to a preterist view even though it’s not at all compatible. I also have no reason to assume your view is the norm among preterists based on the fact that preterists and futurists have never had a cozy relationship, ever, which makes no sense at all if preterists openly considered the possibilities of futurist interpretations as you have done here. So this tells me your view is certainly NOT the norm, hence it looks like you could entertain the idea of future prophecy, but then hide behind the cloak of preterism once the pressure mounts when kooks like Camping make their splash on the public scene, not because of any “ill intent” on your part but just because of human nature. But I was careful to say “it seems” which distinguishes something that is fact and something that is possible based on observation.

It sounds like you're saying that people who hold to preterism are simply trying to compromise their beliefs so that they will fit in more. Is that what you're saying?

[seanD]

It sounds like you're saying that people who hold to preterism are simply trying to compromise their beliefs so that they will fit in more. Is that what you're saying?

In RB's case, yes, this is what it looks like. But not so much "fit in," since there's nothing to fit into. But to ease the pressure against the stigmatization of dispensationalist beliefs and its historical list of presumptuous kooks. And the reason it looks like this to me is because he's wavering between the two, even though they are incompatible to each other, yet identifies himself with the label preterist while implying a view that is not a preterist norm, at least from what I've seen in the many conflicts between preterists and futurists.

[RBerman]

But to ease the pressure against the stigmatization of dispensationalist beliefs and its historical list of presumptuous kooks.

I grew up dispensationalist. Most of my family is still dispensational. They're not kooks. Every Sunday night after church, I go out to dinner with a dispensationalist and talk about eschatology. He's not a kook. We understand each other.

[mickeythemouse]

In RB's case, yes, this is what it looks like. But not so much "fit in," since there's nothing to fit into. But to ease the pressure against the stigmatization of dispensationalist beliefs and its historical list of presumptuous kooks. And the reason it looks like this to me is because he's wavering between the two, even though they are incompatible to each other, yet identifies himself with the label preterist while implying a view that is not a preterist norm, at least from what I've seen in the many conflicts between preterists and futurists.

Well not all futurists are dispensationalists. And every camp has there kooks, not just dispensationalists. A problem I think that futurism has is that several interpretations seem to be speculative, and some just seem not possible, like the fact that the temple must be rebuilt. Several people unfortunately become dispensationalists by default, and not through in depth study. However, this doesn't mean theyre all considered kooks.

[seanD]

Nowhere did I even imply ALL dispensationalists were kooks. Obviously I was referring to "the list" of kooks WITHIN the dispensationalist camp, the ones who typically predict the appearance of the antichrist or the rapture. Not even sure how you and RB interpreted it that way. Of course I'm a dispensationalist, so why would even think that's what I meant. Whatever. I'm done.

[mickeythemouse]

Nowhere did I even imply ALL dispensationalists were kooks. Obviously I was referring to "the list" of kooks WITHIN the dispensationalist camp, the ones who typically predict the appearance of the antichrist or the rapture. Not even sure how you and RB interpreted it that way. Of course I'm a dispensationalist, so why would even think that's what I meant. Whatever. I'm done.

I'm sorry. I meant no disrespect.

[seanD]

No harm, no foul.

[Darfius]

Darfius, you're splitting a hair that doesn't exist between "children of Abraham" and "Jews" and "physical nation of Israel." Those are all different ways of talking about the same thing, and Paul says that Gentiles are included in it through faith. The clearest text to show this is Ephesians 2, where Paul says that Gentiles used to be aliens from "the commonwealth of Israel" (v12) who through Christ are no longer aliens but are now "fellow citizens" (v19).

Paul never blurs the distinction between Abraham's descendants by birth and Abraham's descendants by faith. He merely makes it clear that Abraham is only truly the father of those who share his faith--whether they are his natural descendants or not. In the same way, though we are all "God's offspring", He is only truly Father to those of us who have the "spirit of sonship."

Romans 4:11-17

And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Paul speaks in terms of the historic distinction between Jews and Gentiles to show that, as far as faithful Jews and Gentiles are concerned, it has been abolished. (Eph 2:14-15; Rom 2:25-29) That's why, by the time he gets to Romans 9, when he wants to speak of ethnic Jews he has to qualify it with "according to the flesh" (Rom 9:3) because he's already established that, in all ways that really matter, believing Gentiles are Jews. Romans 9:3-5 are similar to Romans 3:1-2 in showing that Jews did historically have a leg up on Gentiles due to their long cultural history of interaction with YHWH. But that only serves as a reason for more condemnation when they don't believe. They are the "natural branches" which will persevere if they have faith, and which will be cut off if they don't have faith. But the fate of faithless Jews is the same as that of faithless Gentiles. That's what I mean when I say that the ultimate people of God is defined by faith, not ethnicity.

Are you saying that before Christ God did not care for the Gentiles? That He did not consider believing Gentiles members of His household? Paul was using Christ to display a truth that has always been the case, not declaring some change in God. But Christ did not abolish the blood that flowed through their veins to make them no longer descendants of Abraham and it is "on account of the patriarchs" that they are still loved of God. But let's be clear. God loves all men, so this "love" that He still has on account of the patriarchs--which Paul undeniably connects with the promises made to those patriarchs--must be related specifically if not exclusively to Abraham's physical descendants. And some of those promises were that the land of Canaan would become an "everlasting possession" for his descendants and that through his descendants the world "would be blessed."

Well, apart from Eph 2 which I cited above, that's also the thrust of Romans 11, culminating with "All Israel will be saved." Paul has spent Romans 1-8 explaining how Gentiles can be saved through faith even though they don't have the Torah, circumcision, or descent from Abraham-- the three things to which a Jew would look to establish his identity before God. Then Romans 9-10 address the reality of the current partial Jewish rejection of God. Romans 11 concludes that the natural branches (Jews) can easily be a part of the tree alongside the engrafted branches (Gentiles). Thus, when the "fullness of the Gentiles" has come in to Israel, and believing Jews have returned to their ancestral heritage through faith as well, between the two groups, "all Israel will be saved."

What exactly do you mean by the underlined? Do you mean that the natural Jews will somehow naturally become believers in Christ over some undefined period of time? That's so unlikely as to be impossible. More likely is a scenario in which under the duress of "Jacob's trouble" and under the ministry of the two witnesses, they will "look upon the one they have pierced" as their long rejected Savior.

I didn't say that. But the life and death and resurrection of which Paul speaks of us experiencing in Adam and Christ in Romans 5-7 is first and foremost spiritual. "We have died with Christ" (Romans 6:8) and all that. Have you died physically yet?

I agree that is primarily spiritual, but you need to agree that Adam did not have "spiritual" death in mind when God gave him warning.