Former futurist - looking at partial preterism vs full preterism vs historicism

[Littlejoe]

I started my Christian walk as a pre-trib futurist because of the church/denom. I belonged to.
I started listening to Hank Hanagraaf and read his fictional bools "Last Disciple" & "Last Sacrifice" . It made some sense. I am now reading Steve Gregg's "Revelation Four Views - a parallel commentary" I must say that Matthew Henry's views (historicist), are pretty insightful!
Is the historicist view too anti RCC for most folks here? His views seem to line up with Preterist in the first part of Revelations. Any Thoughts?

[themuzicman]

I would avoid full preterism, as it denies bodily resurrection.

Michael

[Littlejoe]

I would avoid full preterism, as it denies bodily resurrection.

Michael

Really? I hadn't picked up on that. Is that Hyper or also most full's?

[themuzicman]

My impression is that hyper and full are the same thing.

[Kelp]

My impression is that hyper and full are the same thing.

Yes, they certainly appear to be used interchangeably.

Littlejoe, it seems to me that most full preterists deny the future Resurection.

Here's a good series on eschatology from one of theologyweb's members (he is a partial preterist). I don't think it says anytihing about historicism, however. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/eschatology.html
It's a bit heavy on the invective and sarcasm, but the scholarship seems to be pretty good.

[Hitch]

The real difference between the Orthodox and 'Full Preterist' involves the nature of the
Resurrection of Christ, rather than eschatology per se. We can accept great variations wrt end times but the bodily Resurrection of Christ is foundational and non-negotiable.

Look real close and search out all you are able , this is a great place to start. Its hard to think of a question that hasnt been dealt with at some point and ,at least ,those on the OP side are still here to account for their views when asked. But its up to you to be satisfied in your own mind and heart.

Take care

Hitch

[RanRan]

The Full-Preterist view goes like this:

The resurrection occurred in 70AD.

Nobody saw it or recorded it because it was 'spiritual.' (That's convenient)

With that, they're stuck trying to prove Christ's resurrection was along the same lines. (His flesh was not resurrected.)

Hyper-Preterists are gnostic nestorians of the worst breed - nut-jobs. Avoid them as the man says.

I think they're main problem is their failure to see the transition in Matt 24 from Christ's return in judgment on that generation and His final return as a thief in the night and without warning at the end. He is clearly (well, clear enough, if you believe Christ atoned God) talking about two very different events in Matt 24.

[Zguy28]

I currently am an Historicist, although I also believe most of the eschatological passages are to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.

And yes you do see a lot of anti-Roman bias in some historicists, especially those that came out of the Reformation (not that they are necessarily wrong ).

[Littlejoe]

The Full-Preterist view goes like this:

The resurrection occurred in 70AD.

Nobody saw it or recorded it because it was 'spiritual.' (That's convenient)

With that, they're stuck trying to prove Christ's resurrection was along the same lines. (His flesh was not resurrected.)

Hyper-Preterists are gnostic nestorians of the worst breed - nut-jobs. Avoid them as the man says.

I think they're main problem is their failure to see the transition in Matt 24 from Christ's return in judgment on that generation and His final return as a thief in the night and without warning at the end. He is clearly (well, clear enough, if you believe Christ atoned God) talking about two very different events in Matt 24.

The Olivet Discourse is a tricky passage no matter where you stand. I just reread it again, and it doesn't seem to have a natural break between "what will soon take place" as John says and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Of course, coming from a futurist background, I am slow to throw away my future physical resurrection stance that are eluded to by Paul in Thessalonians and John in Revelations.

[Littlejoe]

I currently am an Historicist, although I also believe most of the eschatological passages are to be interpreted symbolically, not literally.

And yes you do see a lot of anti-Roman bias in some historicists, especially those that came out of the Reformation (not that they are necessarily wrong ).

You don't expound much on your views, but In the "four views" book I am currently studying, (you can't really just read this thing), you would seem to fall into the Spiritual category that is view #4 in the book. Not the historicist view per se. I am a "Protestant" so it would seem natural to lean that way. Anyone know whether the statements made by some that the Preterist and Futurist views were "invented" by the Jesuits to counter the masses leaving the RCC because of the reformation?

[RanRan]

The Olivet Discourse is a tricky passage no matter where you stand. I just reread it again, and it doesn't seem to have a natural break between "what will soon take place" as John says and "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Of course, coming from a futurist background, I am slow to throw away my future physical resurrection stance that are eluded to by Paul in Thessalonians and John in Revelations.

I believe in the future physical resurrection, I would never ask you to throw that away!

The question begged by the two events Christ described is what is the end like?

I think He will come as a thief in the night, that is, unexpected. 70AD was not unexpected - His church had more than 3 years to prepare for their flight and they did flee!

He won't come ringing the doorbell like that again. He'll just come. Be ready, you won't have any warning signs at all. He doesn't know the day - His words have not passed away to satisfy the philosophical concept of omniscience.

[Littlejoe]

I believe in the future physical resurrection, I would never ask you to throw that away!

The question begged by the two events Christ described is what is the end like?

I think He will come as a thief in the night, that is, unexpected. 70AD was not unexpected - His church had more than 3 years to prepare for their flight and they did flee!

He won't come ringing the doorbell like that again. He'll just come. Be ready, you won't have any warning signs at all. He doesn't know the day - His words have not passed away to satisfy the philosophical concept of omniscience.

I didn't think your were advocating that I give up my physical resurrection view. I see you're a partial preterist so we would agree on that.

So your saying that there are two distinct events Christ is describing in Matt 24? My point was that it doesn't seem to be two distinct events but one event. Am I missing something?

Your points about the AD 70 not being unexpected is true, though. He doesn't make the thief in the night statement in Matt 24 though,

His words have not passed away to satisfy the philosophical concept of omniscience

not sure what you mean by this statement.

[RanRan]

I didn't think your were advocating that I give up my physical resurrection view. I see you're a partial preterist so we would agree on that.

So your saying that there are two distinct events Christ is describing in Matt 24? My point was that it doesn't seem to be two distinct events but one event. Am I missing something?

Let me ask you, do you believe that Christ took away the sins of the world?

Do you believe that God is not counting men's sins against them?

Most Christians today don't believe either. Their eschatology defines their 'gospel.'

[Littlejoe]

Eph 2:8. says "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;" - Therefore, I don't believe all the world is saved, but those who put their faith in The Messiah and what he did with his death, burial and resurrection.

1 John 1:5-10

5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - I believe that Christ died for all my sins, even the ones I haven't committed yet. All I have to do is trust in HIM.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Littlejoe I have not had time to post much lately, but here are some links to help you.

First, my site, http://www.preteristsite.com which has a lot of material you would be interested in, particularly my commentary on Matthew 24 It's Not the End of the World!