I’ve been thinking about preterism a bit. Wondering how the people living just prior to ad70 understood the coming of the Lord.
Also, wondering if they did assume that the Lord was to return in that generation, is it fair to apply the test of a false prophet (Deut 18) in that case? Josephus mentions an event that sounds like the coming of the Lord around ad65. I’ve heard that there is a significant downside to preterism--a bit of discouragement if it’s true . . . maybe we’ve been sold a bunch of baloney . . . or are we to expect a third (future to us) coming?
Here’s the problem as I see it: If the Lord promised to return to that generation, and didn’t, is it fatal to Christianity? If he promised to return and indeed did return, how does that change the game for us now? Is the church age over, is the great commission fulfilled? Was the time of the gentiles the period between ad66 and ad70?
Bob,
You have asked some important questions. I have been fascinated by this topic for the last several months.
I would recommend RC Sproul’s book “The Last Days According To Jesus.” He addresses these questions quite well.
RC Sproul is a “partial preterist” who believes that all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled except for the second coming of Christ.
However, he does allow for the possibility that Jesus did return in some way in AD 70, and he would say that we are to expect the final coming yet future.
Full preterism says that the second coming did occur in AD 70, and we are now living in the Kingdom Age that Jesus promised when he said all things would be fulfilled during the generation that lived at that time.
The full preterist views need to be examined and answered. There are those who would write these people off as heretics or liberals. But from the research I have done, the full preterists believe in inerrancy and they take the Bible very literally.
I have always been bothered by what Jesus meant in Matthew 24: NIV
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
-----------------
The key word in verse 34 ALL This generation will not pass away until ALL these things are fulfilled. The context seems to be talking about His second coming.
I have not seen any satisfactory explanation for these verses. Some have tried to say it was the “Transfiguration” that he was referring to, or some will try to change the meaning of the word “generation” to the human race, or to extend the meaning of generation to extend to the end of time.
Atheists have looked at these verses and discredited Jesus because He did not return within that generation.
The full preterists have at least met these problems head on and take the verse literally They say that Jesus really did keep his promise and returned in AD 70, but not in a literal coming in the clouds.
It was clear that Paul and the apostles in their writings expected a very soon coming of Jesus, and not over 2000 years later.
RC Sproul in his book quotes liberally from J. Stuart Russell, who was a 19th century full Preteriist. Sproul admits that the answers to these questions are not easy.
I am in the process of studying this topic in more detail.
“Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence” (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3)
Is this credible? It was written by a non Christian, but would he have reason to falsify? I’d think this would have been a very unpopular topic--even dangerous to mention, in the years following the event. If it’s not true, why would he risk mentioning it?
RC Sproul in his book also quotes extensively from Josephus about the witnesses to the supernatural celestial events surrounding the seige of Jerusalem by Titus and his armies.
Also there is historical material that suggests that some of this historical narrative was suppressed.
There is an article here that raises questions about why Preterists views were suppressed and some of the historical details of the capture of Jerusalem kept out of traditional early church literature:
Bob,
You have asked some important questions. I have been fascinated by this topic for the last several months.
I would recommend RC Sproul’s book “The Last Days According To Jesus.” He addresses these questions quite well.
RC Sproul is a “partial preterist” who believes that all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled except for the second coming of Christ.
However, he does allow for the possibility that Jesus did return in some way in AD 70, and he would say that we are to expect the final coming yet future.
Full preterism says that the second coming did occur in AD 70, and we are now living in the Kingdom Age that Jesus promised when he said all things would be fulfilled during the generation that lived at that time.
The full preterist views need to be examined and answered. There are those who would write these people off as heretics or liberals. But from the research I have done, the full preterists believe in inerrancy and they take the Bible very literally.
Stan,
All orthodox, conservative Christians, condemn full preterism as heresy, as it not only denies the second coming of Christ but also denies the resurrection of the dead and the new heavens and new earth!
To say that they “take the Bible very literally” is demonstrably false, Stan!
Stan Ermshar - 18 March 2011 02:13 AM
It was clear that Paul and the apostles in their writings expected a very soon coming of Jesus, and not over 2000 years later.
I don’t believe that is true at all. The writers of the NT knew that no one knows when the return of Jesus will be, and that as Jesus Himself said immediately before His ascension, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;” (Acts 1:7 NASB.) And the apostle John wrote:
21So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
23Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” (John 21:21-23 NASB.)
(As a sidenote, it is obvious from that last verse that the early Christians believed that those who live until Christ’s coming would not die, and yet John obviously died--thus destroying the preterist theory that Christ already came!)
Also, how can you say that the apostles in their writings expected a very soon coming of Jesus, when Peter wrote the following, even making reference to “a thousand years”??:
3Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
4and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
[...]
8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:3-4, 8-10 NASB.)
Also, notice that the NT at times refers to the “last days” as something in the future. (BTW, I don’t think verse 10 has occurred yet. )
Your response is a little overbearing in response to some of the questions being asked. Bob is asking some questions that deserve good answers
Have you read RC Sproul’s book on this? If you have not, then I think your response comes across as a little harsh.
However, your response is somewhat predictable since the web sites you have posted clearly teaches dispensationalism and they likely teach the pre-tribulation rapture. The Dispensational view says that those who reject Christ before the rapture will have a second chance to be saved during the tribulation by the WORK of rejecting the mark of the beast.
I am not saying that you personally believe this, but that is most likely teaching of the website you posted.
Dispensational theology is already on the decline and will likely not be a tenable system of eschatology when the proponents from Dallas Theological seminary pass on.
However, Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement will continue this for the time being. It looks like the official former Adventist movement is adopting this position stronger than they used to.
Jeremy, you did not address the problem with Matthew 24:34. The web site you posted explains it away by changing the basic meaning of the word “generation”
Your response is a little overbearing in response to some of the questions being asked. Bob is asking some questions that deserve good answers
Have you read RC Sproul’s book on this? If you have not, then I think your response comes across as a little harsh.
Stan, my post had nothing to do with partial preterism (which Sproul advocates), except for the resources I linked to in my PS.
I made it clear that I was addressing the outright heresy of full preterism (also known as hyper-preterism), which even partial preterists (such as Sproul) acknowledge is heretical.
In fact, Sproul states in his book: “[Dr. Kenneth] Gentry criticizes full preterism sharply, arguing that it falls outside the scope of orthodox Christianity. At least from a creedal perspective, Gentry says it is heterodoxy (or heresy). [...] I share Gentry’s concerns about full preterism, particularly on such issues as the consummation of the kingdom and the resurrection of the dead.”
And Dr. Gentry (a partial preterist himself whose endorsement is on the back cover of Sproul’s book) also says the following about full/hyper-preterism:
“Before I begin my analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite) circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though, like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith.” (http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/gentry-kenneth.html)
Gentry also says:
“Unfortunately, a new gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history. As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the resurrection of Christ.” (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/2003_gentry_christs-resurrection.html)
Gentry even goes so far as to state the following, according to the following article written by a full preterist:
His further contention in this paragraph, in an attempt to distance himself from Full Preterism, is even worse. He equates Full Preterists with the state of being ‘not a Christian at all’. This is going way too far.
Stan, full preterism is so heretical that it cannot even be compared with partial preterism.
Stan Ermshar - 18 March 2011 05:09 PM
However, your response is somewhat predictable since the web sites you have posted clearly teaches dispensationalism and they likely teach the pre-tribulation rapture. The Dispensational view says that those who reject Christ before the rapture will have a second chance to be saved during the tribulation by the WORK of rejecting the mark of the beast.
I am not saying that you personally believe this, but that is most likely teaching of the website you posted.
Dispensational theology is already on the decline and will likely not be a tenable system of eschatology when the proponents from Dallas Theological seminary pass on.
However, Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement will continue this for the time being. It looks like the official former Adventist movement is adopting this position stronger than they used to.
Jeremy, you did not address the problem with Matthew 24:34. The web site you posted explains it away by changing the basic meaning of the word “generation”
Stan
Stan, there is no such thing as “the official former Adventist movement.”
There are many credible explanations of Matthew 24:34, but denying the literal return of Christ is not one of them, as all orthodox Christians, including partial preterists such as R.C. Sproul, would agree.
As R.C. Sproul points out in The Last Days according to Jesus, full preterists are actually the ones who believe in a “Secret Rapture” (as people like to claim pre-trib teaches). Sproul says:
“To maintain a past fulfillment of the rapture, Russell argues for a “secret” rapture that takes place in the non-physical, spiritual realm. He admits there is no evidence that these events occurred as described. But this is because the events described took place in the non-sensory realm.
If this is the case, why did the apostle use the language he did? He said the Lord would descend with a shout, but Russell says nobody could hear it. The voice of the archangel is silent, and the trumpet of God is mute. Not only this, but the multitude of the rising dead were caught up invisibly into invisible clouds to meet the invisible, coming Lord.
This raises severe questions of hermeneutics. [...]”
So if you’re going to call me a “harsh” critic of full preterism, then you must call Sproul the same. Sounds pretty sarcastic even, doesn’t he?
The bottom line is that the issue of full preterism is not merely an issue of eschatology (such as debating the merits of pre-trib/post-trib, pre-mil/post-mil/a-mil, dispensationalism/partial-preterism, etc.). Rather, it is the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy.
Jeremy
P.S. You didn’t answer my responses to your statement that the NT writers “expected a very soon coming of Jesus.”
Jeremy wrote:
So if you’re going to call me a “harsh” critic of full preterism, then you must call Sproul the same. Sounds pretty sarcastic even, doesn’t he?
The bottom line is that the issue of full preterism is not merely an issue of eschatology (such as debating the merits of pre-trib/post-trib, pre-mil/post-mil/a-mil, dispensationalism/partial-preterism, etc.). Rather, it is the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy.
---------------------------
Jeremy,
Please show me in my posts above where I advocate believing in the full preterist position?
You are jumping to conclusions.
All I said is that the arguments of the full preterists deserve to be answered. You have not answered Bob’s original post that started this thread
You clearly wanted to take a shot at the partial preterist position of Sproul by posting the website links above.
You quoted from Sproul, but you did not say that you actually read the entire book.
I am saying that he quotes extensively from J. Stuart Russell, a full preterist to support his partial preterism.
I know all about Kenneth Gentry that you quote above. But if Kenneth Gentry is correct (and I believe he is) about the book of Revelation being written before AD 70, then the partial preterist position is very tenable, and all the futurist nonsense out there is really called in to question.
Jeremy,
Do you believe Sabbath days and animal sacrifices will some day be reinstituted in a millennial kingdom?
Partial preterism is the strongest eschatology that puts the Jewish system to rest completely. All Sabbath days and animal sacrifices were abolished completely by the sacrifice on the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the end of God dealing directly with Israel.
Jeremy wrote:
So if you’re going to call me a “harsh” critic of full preterism, then you must call Sproul the same. Sounds pretty sarcastic even, doesn’t he?
The bottom line is that the issue of full preterism is not merely an issue of eschatology (such as debating the merits of pre-trib/post-trib, pre-mil/post-mil/a-mil, dispensationalism/partial-preterism, etc.). Rather, it is the difference between orthodox Christianity and heresy.
---------------------------
Jeremy,
Please show me in my posts above where I advocate believing in the full preterist position?
You are jumping to conclusions.
All I said is that the arguments of the full preterists deserve to be answered. You have not answered Bob’s original post that started this thread
Stan,
I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. I didn’t say that you were advocating belief in the full preterist position--I was responding to your statements that were defensive of the heresy of full preterism, that made it sound like we should not “write these people off as heretics or liberals” and that they “take the Bible very literally.” I was also concerned by your statements that sounded like you are studying the full preterist position or might be toying with the idea that it might be true.
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 03:30 AM
You clearly wanted to take a shot at the partial preterist position of Sproul by posting the website links above.
I wasn’t trying to “take a shot” at that position. I personally disagree with it and so I linked to a couple of short articles I found (from the very respectable, Calvinist-leaning gotquestions.org site) which offer a critique of it, since Bob asked for some good reading material pro or con. However, I don’t consider partial preterism to be heresy, and differences in eschatology are not an issue that Christians should divide over (unless it involves essentials of the faith, as I showed above regarding full preterism).
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 03:30 AM
You quoted from Sproul, but you did not say that you actually read the entire book.
I am saying that he quotes extensively from J. Stuart Russell, a full preterist to support his partial preterism.
I know all about Kenneth Gentry that you quote above. But if Kenneth Gentry is correct (and I believe he is) about the book of Revelation being written before AD 70, then the partial preterist position is very tenable, and all the futurist nonsense out there is really called in to question.
Jeremy,
Do you believe Sabbath days and animal sacrifices will some day be reinstituted in a millennial kingdom?
Partial preterism is the strongest eschatology that puts the Jewish system to rest completely. All Sabbath days and animal sacrifices were abolished completely by the sacrifice on the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the end of God dealing directly with Israel.
Stan
Stan, no, I do not adhere to dispensationalism and I don’t believe that animal sacrifices or holy days will be reinstituted. I do, however, believe in a millennial kingdom on earth, as described in Revelation 20 and elsewhere.
I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions. I didn’t say that you were advocating belief in the full preterist position--I was responding to your statements that were defensive of the heresy of full preterism, that made it sound like we should not “write these people off as heretics or liberals” and that they “take the Bible very literally.” I was also concerned by your statements that sounded like you are studying the full preterist position or might be toying with the idea that it might be true.
--------------------------------
Jeremy,
When I was reading Sproul’s book, it seemed that Sproul at least had respect for the writings of a full preterist, quoting large parts of it, and basing his own views on at least some of it. I almost got the feeling that RC himself was a little torn at times. This is the feeling you get when you actually read the book rather than quote from certain portions of the book.
Sproul does admit Matthew 24:34 says what it means, and that you can’t change the meaning of the word generation, the way that some have in order to escape the full force of what Jesus was saying.
Many full Preterists come from Reformed backgrounds, and are very intelligent and scholarly Bible students.
This movement is growing as many previously orthodox folks have joined the movement. It is not monolithic. There are those who are very orthodox on all other essential doctrines, but believe that instead of there being a literal resurrection and visible second coming, we get our resurrection bodies in heaven the moment we die. There are also liberals and universalists within the movement, whose material I won’t read.
Chuck Smith is one orthodox pastor who does teach that we get our resurrection bodies when we die, and he also holds that Jesus did not rise in the same body that he went into the grave with. Craig Hawkins says these are unorthodox positions, but these do not make him a heretic.
Jeremy, I admit that I do like to read books by some unorthodox folks just to know what they think and why they believe the way they do. If their doctrines need to be refuted, then they should be refuted from primary sources, rather than quoting what some biased dispensationalist web site says.
I have read a book by a former PCA (conservative Presbyterian) pastor who now is pastor of “Messiah Reformed Church”. He has written a new book that is controversial but very interesting to read. The book is “Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes” by Alan Bondar. He writes the book with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant, and he is Calvinistic in his soteriology, and totally orthodox on the Trinity and the person of Christ.
However his contention is that the Bible needs to be read in its historical context, taking in consideration the times, and considering the people the Bible writers were addressing.
It is a serious new book on this topic that may have quite an impact. He seems consistent with his hermeneutic and does a detailed analysis of all the texts that the orthodox would use to argue against his position.
I don’t agree with many of his conclusions, but he certainly will get one thinking.
I have a very difficult time dealing with the implications of full preterism, but I do understand why they hold the positions they do. It is commonly assumed that they don’t even believe in an afterlife, but this is not true. They believe that we will all live out our lifetimes to see our kids and grandkids grow up, but also have the hope of eternal life in heaven the moment they die.
Even though orthodox people regard full preterists as unorthodox, I haven’t heard them labeled as non Christians, or “lost”, because they adopt these positions.
I think it is only legitimate and honest to ask the difficult questions with regard to Matthew 24.
Atheists have given up the faith writing off Jesus as a false prophet because he didn’t come back in their generation.
The full preterist answers the atheist by saying that a close reading of the Bible will show that Jesus did return to execute judgment on Israel, and that he has no excuse being an atheist on this basis.
I think also, that Christians should be able to ask honest questions about doubts they may have regarding some things without being shouted down.
Pray for me Jeremy while I try to study this issue further for myself. (Smiley--I am not giving up my faith)
I don’t know why you would form that conclusion Stan. He is caught adding to Revelation numerous times with the Pre-trib Rapture doctrine. That is a no-no. It is also a fruit that tells us his gospel is way off.
Jeremy,
When I was reading Sproul’s book, it seemed that Sproul at least had respect for the writings of a full preterist, quoting large parts of it, and basing his own views on at least some of it. I almost got the feeling that RC himself was a little torn at times. This is the feeling you get when you actually read the book rather than quote from certain portions of the book.
And yet he said that he shares Gentry’s concerns, and Gentry says that full preterists are not even Christians!
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
Sproul does admit Matthew 24:34 says what it means, and that you can’t change the meaning of the word generation, the way that some have in order to escape the full force of what Jesus was saying.
Many full Preterists come from Reformed backgrounds, and are very intelligent and scholarly Bible students.
This movement is growing as many previously orthodox folks have joined the movement. It is not monolithic. There are those who are very orthodox on all other essential doctrines, but believe that instead of there being a literal resurrection and visible second coming, we get our resurrection bodies in heaven the moment we die. There are also liberals and universalists within the movement, whose material I won’t read.
As far as I understand, full preterists do not believe in a physical resurrection, but at most a resurrection with some kind of non-physical “spirit” body (sort of like the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ heretical teaching about the resurrection of Jesus--that He was only raised in a spirit body), which we will receive in heaven after death.
(This teaching would not fit very well with conditional immortality, by the way. )
Also, what do full preterists believe happens to the unsaved when they die?
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
Chuck Smith is one orthodox pastor who does teach that we get our resurrection bodies when we die, and he also holds that Jesus did not rise in the same body that he went into the grave with. Craig Hawkins says these are unorthodox positions, but these do not make him a heretic.
It is not only unorthodox, but is unBiblical as well, and changes the definition of “resurrection” to more of a “reincarnation.”
Also, Chuck Smith does not deny that Jesus rose in the same body (I gave you quotes of his proving this before--I can find them again if you want).
Additionally, Chuck Smith, unlike full preterists, does teach that we receive glorified, physical bodies after death.
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
Jeremy, I admit that I do like to read books by some unorthodox folks just to know what they think and why they believe the way they do. If their doctrines need to be refuted, then they should be refuted from primary sources, rather than quoting what some biased dispensationalist web site says.
Stan, I did not quote any “biased dispensationalist web site.” I linked to gotquestions.org critiquing partial preterism, but the only quotes that I’ve posted in this thread were from partial preterists!
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
I have read a book by a former PCA (conservative Presbyterian) pastor who now is pastor of “Messiah Reformed Church”. He has written a new book that is controversial but very interesting to read. The book is “Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes” by Alan Bondar. He writes the book with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant, and he is Calvinistic in his soteriology, and totally orthodox on the Trinity and the person of Christ.
However his contention is that the Bible needs to be read in its historical context, taking in consideration the times, and considering the people the Bible writers were addressing.
It is a serious new book on this topic that may have quite an impact. He seems consistent with his hermeneutic and does a detailed analysis of all the texts that the orthodox would use to argue against his position.
I don’t agree with many of his conclusions, but he certainly will get one thinking.
I have a very difficult time dealing with the implications of full preterism, but I do understand why they hold the positions they do. It is commonly assumed that they don’t even believe in an afterlife, but this is not true. They believe that we will all live out our lifetimes to see our kids and grandkids grow up, but also have the hope of eternal life in heaven the moment they die.
Stan, please check out this excellent “Brief Analysis of Full Preterism or Hyper Preterism” by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, which deals with the resurrection as well as other issues: http://fide-o.com/2009/05/full-preterism/
Even though orthodox people regard full preterists as unorthodox, I haven’t heard them labeled as non Christians, or “lost”, because they adopt these positions.
Stan, even the preterist Dr. Gentry said in the quote I posted above that full preterists are not Christians “at all.”
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
I think it is only legitimate and honest to ask the difficult questions with regard to Matthew 24.
Atheists have given up the faith writing off Jesus as a false prophet because he didn’t come back in their generation.
The full preterist answers the atheist by saying that a close reading of the Bible will show that Jesus did return to execute judgment on Israel, and that he has no excuse being an atheist on this basis.
But even that explanation of Jesus’ words is accepted by many of those who reject full preterism. Why must one accept full preterism and go off into heresy in order to believe that Jesus came to judge Israel in AD 70??
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 02:53 PM
I think also, that Christians should be able to ask honest questions about doubts they may have regarding some things without being shouted down.
Pray for me Jeremy while I try to study this issue further for myself. (Smiley--I am not giving up my faith)
Stan
I’ll be glad to pray for you as you study this issue, as we can all use prayer, and I am not trying to shout anyone down. I agree that people should be able to ask honest questions about their doubts--but the fact is that there are solid answers which remain within the bounds of historic orthodox Christianity, the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
The main concern I have with partial preterism is that it seems to have led many into the heresy of full preterism.
I’ll be glad to pray for you as you study this issue, as we can all use prayer, and I am not trying to shout anyone down. I agree that people should be able to ask honest questions about their doubts--but the fact is that there are solid answers which remain within the bounds of historic orthodox Christianity, the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
The main concern I have with partial preterism is that it seems to have led many into the heresy of full preterism.
--------------------
Yes Jeremy, I agree that as a result of reading RC Sproul’s book with all of his quotes from full preterist, J. Stuart Russell, it sparked my interest in this topic. It seems that the logical conclusion of partial preterism may be full preterism. I am a long way from accepting full preterism. I just wish some good scholars would answer the new book by Alan Bondar, rather than just call him a heretic. By refuting his claims directly, then his teachings will not gain ground. However, it is only fair to read his book and critique what he wrote rather than to automatically call it heresy. The reason for this is the full Preterist movement is spreading faster than is realized.
Jeremy,
Can you come up with reasonable explanations of Matthew 24:34 that are scholarly and don’t change the meaning of the text?
This text and parallel passages in Luke and Mark, are what has historically spawned the Preterist movement. If these basic questions can be adequately answered, then full Preterism will be stopped in its tracks.
“I believe that Russell’s work is one of the most important treatments on Biblical eschatology that is available to the church today. The issues raised in this volume with respect to the time-frame references of the New Testament to the Parousia are vitally important not only for eschatology but for the future debate over the credibility of Sacred Scripture.”
“I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell’s important work.” —Dr. R. C. Sproul, The founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries
------------------------------------------
“How many times have you struggled with the interpretation of certain Biblical texts related to the time of Jesus’ return because they did not fit with a preconceived system of eschatology? Russell’s Parousia takes the Bible seriously when it tells us of the nearness of Christ’s return. Those who claim to interpret the Bible literally often trip over the obvious meaning of these time texts by making Scripture mean the opposite of what it unequivocally declares. Reading Russell is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with smoke and mirror hermeneutics.” — Gary DeMar, Author of Last Days Madness
---------------------
Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of J. Stuart Russell’s The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compellingly written defense of preterism to serious and mature students of the Bible. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject of eschatology and has had a great impact on my own thinking. Russell’s biblical theological study of New Testament eschatology sets a standard of excellence.” — Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Author of Before Jerusalem Fell
-------------------------------------
“throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable for all.” —Charles H. Spurgeon
------------------------
In view of Dr. Russell’s insightful observations, no serious student of Biblical escatology should attempt to construct a systemeatic scheme of apocalyptic events without first consulting this 19th century work, The Parousia.” — Walt Hibbard, Great Christian Books
———————————
While none of the above authors agree with the final conclusions of Russell, they all admit that there is a lot of benefit to reading this work. I think that the same thing may be said of the new book by Alan Bondar. These books cause one to think critically of what they believe and why they believe it.
“I believe that Russell’s work is one of the most important treatments on Biblical eschatology that is available to the church today. The issues raised in this volume with respect to the time-frame references of the New Testament to the Parousia are vitally important not only for eschatology but for the future debate over the credibility of Sacred Scripture.”
“I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. I hope better scholars than I will continue to analyze and evaluate the content of J. Stuart Russell’s important work.” —Dr. R. C. Sproul, The founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries
------------------------------------------
“How many times have you struggled with the interpretation of certain Biblical texts related to the time of Jesus’ return because they did not fit with a preconceived system of eschatology? Russell’s Parousia takes the Bible seriously when it tells us of the nearness of Christ’s return. Those who claim to interpret the Bible literally often trip over the obvious meaning of these time texts by making Scripture mean the opposite of what it unequivocally declares. Reading Russell is a breath of fresh air in a room filled with smoke and mirror hermeneutics.” — Gary DeMar, Author of Last Days Madness
---------------------
Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of J. Stuart Russell’s The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compellingly written defense of preterism to serious and mature students of the Bible. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject of eschatology and has had a great impact on my own thinking. Russell’s biblical theological study of New Testament eschatology sets a standard of excellence.” — Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Author of Before Jerusalem Fell
-------------------------------------
“throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable for all.” —Charles H. Spurgeon
------------------------
In view of Dr. Russell’s insightful observations, no serious student of Biblical escatology should attempt to construct a systemeatic scheme of apocalyptic events without first consulting this 19th century work, The Parousia.” — Walt Hibbard, Great Christian Books
———————————
While none of the above authors agree with the final conclusions of Russell, they all admit that there is a lot of benefit to reading this work. I think that the same thing may be said of the new book by Alan Bondar. These books cause one to think critically of what they believe and why they believe it.
Stan
I need to correct something I said above:
Apparently J Stuart Russell’s book is not in the same category of full preterism. That is why Sproul, Gentry, and Spurgeon could say good things about the book.
There is an introduction and explanation of the book, and there is an online PDF version of the book. This book is my next project on this. For some reason, Sproul seemed to imply that Russell was a full preterist, so I will have to check this out further.
Yes Jeremy, I agree that as a result of reading RC Sproul’s book with all of his quotes from full preterist, J. Stuart Russell, it sparked my interest in this topic. It seems that the logical conclusion of partial preterism may be full preterism. I am a long way from accepting full preterism. I just wish some good scholars would answer the new book by Alan Bondar, rather than just call him a heretic. By refuting his claims directly, then his teachings will not gain ground. However, it is only fair to read his book and critique what he wrote rather than to automatically call it heresy. The reason for this is the full Preterist movement is spreading faster than is realized.
I must admit that I have to give Gentry credit for at least being willing to strongly take on full preterism and show the heretical nature of it.
Stan Ermshar - 19 March 2011 10:19 PM
Jeremy,
Can you come up with reasonable explanations of Matthew 24:34 that are scholarly and don’t change the meaning of the text?
This text and parallel passages in Luke and Mark, are what has historically spawned the Preterist movement. If these basic questions can be adequately answered, then full Preterism will be stopped in its tracks.
Stan
Well, first of all, let me clarify a couple of things.
1. Are you saying that any interpretation of Matthew 24:34 that does not accept that “this generation” refers exclusively to those alive before AD 70 is not scholarly or reasonable?
2. How is the partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24:34 different from the full preterist interpretation? I thought they were identical? In other words, why would you need to go beyond partial preterism in order to explain Matthew 24:34?
)