Preterism Puns

I am a partial preterist. Think Sproul. Lately, however, I have been struggling with the pull of full preterism which leaves only my death and glorification as the unfulfilled aspects of the NC for me. I feel it most as I read through the NT texts regarding the Kingdom, judgement, and the Trib. I believe that the Trib has happened, Revelation was written pre-70 AD, and that the Kingdom has been established, but we are not currently fully partaking of it yet.

I am struggling to differentiate, and I am wondering if anyone has any resources that expound on the good, bad, and the ugly of both partial and full preterism. I do not anticipate changing my a-mil view or my partial-preterist view, but I want to be sure. If you have Bible passages, please pass them along. I need discernment, and me discerning as a lone wolf is not wise.

Ephesians 4:13-15 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—

From a plain reading of Scripture, I always assumed certain verses were speaking of a future time. However, there’s the belief that a lot of Revelation, Matthew 24 & Daniel have been fulfilled already or were fulfilled in 70 AD. What do you say?

Looking to add a reference note for 2 Thess. 2:2 (Basically, Paul warning them against believing those who say that Christ has already returned). I feel there are others in this community who are far more informed on preterism than I am. Feel free to elaborate even though I asked fir an ELI5, just no essays please.

Edit: my phone didn’t go off for any responses to this. Will respond to each. Thank you all for your feedback!

What are your views on full preterism?

We recently had a split in my church and the church has adopted a full preterist view.

It is my basic understanding that full preterists believe that the prophecies in the bible have already happened while futurists or partial-preterists believe many of the prophecies (like the Second Coming) are still to come.

My question is how do these beliefs affect you? On a general day to day basis, what is the general difference between Christians who believe Jesus will return in the future and those who believe he returned in AD 70? Thanks!

If anyone could help me figure out an adequate interpretation of Daniel 12 either by comment or resource from a preterist perspective that would just be terrific. I’ve been leaning preterist lately but trying to reconcile some of the problem passages especially revelation 20 and Daniel 12

“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:34‬ ‭

What did Jesus mean by “this generation”?

I'm pretty ignorant on eschatology and am curious what would be considered a traditionally Reformed position.

Thanks!

In the Preteriste view, is Jesus ever going to physically come back? Or is society just going to run its course and we only get to see God in Heaven?

This is probably a topic people find hard to believe, but is there anyone out there who is struggling with full preterism or believes with certainty they can demonstrate the falsehood of it? I'd be lying if I said I was asking for a friend, but I am personally struggling with the following issues:

1. The resurrection of the dead being the rising of the dead saints out of Sheol/Hades and believers past that time in 70 AD rise again with new glorified, spiritual bodies until the end of history.

2. Christ's 2nd coming being in 70 AD due to common texts like Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, etc. as well as Josephus and Tacitus citing heavenly appearances around the temple during the siege of Jerusalem.

3. Christ reigning currently on earth in this millenium in the invisible kingdom of Heaven that I believe did come to earth with us currently living in Zechariah 14.

I realize what I believe somewhat differs from hardline full preterists, but I legitimately don't know who to talk to about this. I've seen the word "heretic" tossed from one of my elders at my church when mentioning James Stuart Russell which got me shoved in this direction. Likewise, I am also struggling with believing portions of previous creeds regarding certain issues on the things I listed above. My beliefs on justification by faith alone in Christ alone by God's grace alone has not changed, the Trinity, and the deity and eternality of Christ has by no means changed, but I am saddened by the fact that having this current belief likely makes me a heretic in the eyes of people I see as true believers in Christ. I still believe in preaching the gospel to the nations. I still believe men can have peace with God by Jesus' work on the cross. I do believe men in Christ rise and reign with Christ and the wicked getting thrown in the lake of fire, but again, I struggle with resurrecting in this current body I have.

A friend of mine says Mathew 24 is a good evidence for believing full preterism. What is the the scholarly opinion on this? He points to verses where Jesus straight up says “some of you won’t see death” also where Jesus uses metaphorical language about heaven and earth falling away, just as Isaiah 13 does.

This is a question that's been on my mind for over 2 years now. I grew up in a church that holds some pretty standard dispensationalist view. I was never really convinced, but I also never questioned it much. However, I could never say anything about Mt 24-25 as I found it confusing, but I just accepted it.

While reading Bertrand Russell I got introduced to the "problem" of Jesus not coming back within "this generation". But, as I found, there are some interpretations of historic literature and scripture that would make it seem possible that Jesus in fact came back within this time.

In the meantime I've read "Before Jerusalem fell" (Gentry), "The Parousia" (Russell), parts of Josephus, and a couple of blog posts and sermons on the topic, like "The last days according to Jesus" (Sproul). It seems pretty convincing to me, but I am aware that not many scholars hold this view.

My question is: Am I missing something? Is there strong evidence why this view (in some variation) can't be true? What are the main arguments against it? Or is it in fact a position that can be held without going against all sense and reason? How many scholars hold it?

I'll give you a list of the strongest arguments that seem convincing to me, I'd be happy to be given specific answers to any of them. I'm also glad about general answers to this question. I know it's a lot for a single post, but any help is appreciated.

1. No necessity to arbitrarily (as it seems to me) split the Olivet discourse in two parts when it seems like the description of a single event.
2. "This generation" becomes much easier to understand. It can be understood literally and there is no need for an additional explanation.
3. The big city in Revelation is Jerusalem (Rev 11:8). A recurring topic is the blood of the saints (6:11 and others). The great whore in 17:6 is made responsible for the shedding of their blood. She is dressed in colors of the tabernacle (17:4). So, the whole thing suggests to be about the judgement of Israel for what they have done to the early Christians (when persecution was probably the worst it's ever been). Also, with this interpretation again no splitting in two parts with a 2000+ year gap is needed, but everything is much more connected to chapters 2-3.
4. In Dan 12:9 the words are closed and sealed (for 600 years) and then since 2000 years they are not, Rev 22:10. It seems more reasonable to me that within the next years of the unsealing something happens.
5. General mood of n

I've never given Partial Preterism much thought before, but I just finished watching this lecture series by R.C. Sproul and it was fascinating. I think that it helps a lot with understanding certain passages. At the same time, there are some issues I have with it.

What are your guys' thoughts?

Now this is a very general question, albeit, I will basically summarize Full Preterism as this; the belief that Jesus has already come back and past judgement in 70AD. There is much information on the subject if you search on this topic. Particularly at a site called Preterist Archive.

Hi, I recently heard about partial preterism, can you suggest some good websites to learn about it

Based on Scripture and things that I’ve studied it would appear that the book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70. However, it seems that the general consensus is that it was written after AD 70. So my question is, how do people defend a futurist view of the book of Revelation?

Hey, r/reformed. Have a brother who’s being convinced of FP. What resources do you recommend on the subject?

Hey, r/reformedbaptist. Have a brother who’s being convinced of FP. What resources do you recommend on the subject?