I wonder if someone would give a brief discription of what partial Preterists believe.<br>It might also be helpful to provide an article.<br><br>Thanks <br>Tom
Here is a page by Gary Demar, who is a partial-preterist. There are some articles there that you can check out, and some comments on Matthew 24, which one of the sources of partial-preterist. http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/d/demar-gary_partial.html His book End times fiction also has section on Matthew 24.
If you are really dying to know more [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img],then you go to the link for more articles than you want. http://preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/index.html
Here is a critique by Prof. David Engelsma; he focuses on both the full and partial-preterist. http://members.aol.com/twarren14/preterist.html. His critique was not taken well by some partial-preterists as you will see near the end of the articles; there is reply by Demar Himself.
In Christ, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
In reply to:]I wonder if someone would give a brief discription of what partial Preterists believe. It might also be helpful to provide an article.
A more accurate term is Orthodox preterism. This distinction is made necessary by the rise of heretical full preterism. However, this latter term has been hijacked by FP in the same way that the term "Calvinism" has been hijacked by some hyper-calvinists. The term, "Partial Preterist" was invented by the FP. Prior to that, Orthodox preterism was simply known as "preterism".
Orthodox preterism is simply a method of prophetic intrepretation that sees much of NT bible prophecy (e.g. Matt 24:1-34; 2 Thess 2; Rev 1:1-20:6) as being fulfilled in the past (either in AD 70 at the fall of Jerusalem, or later at the fall of Imperial Rome). Because it doesn't teach that all Bible prophecy is fullfilled, it has therefore been labelled "Partial" by the FP's. This is a propaganda tactic similar to the way that some hyper-calvinists falsely accuse true Calvinists (e.g. Spurgeon, the Puritans, etc) of being inconsistent for preaching the free offer of the gospel to all men.
But because Orthodox Preterists hold to the the time tested Christian orthodoxy of the early church creeds which teach a future resurrection of the just and unjust, and teach a future literal coming of Christ, they are therefore called, Orthodox preterists.
Having now read Dr. Englsma's article, I should warn eveyone that Dr. E. misses a major distinction, and his omission nullifies his entire argument. He is conflating two separate positions, Orthodox preterism, which has been recognized as orthodox since at least the Westminster Assembly and "consistent," "full" or "hyper" preterism which is relatively novel and a definite heresy.<br>The differences between the two positions are reasonably well summed up by Sandlin's letter (which Englsma thankfully quotes).<br>To charge as Englsma does that inconsistent preterism must lead to full blown preterism is an error in logic. It is the same error as assuming that holding to Cavinistic soteriology inevitably leads to Antinomianism.
Last edited by timmopussycat; Sat Jun 28, 20038:49 AM.
