The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is William Hendricksen a partial preterist?

I don't think he is as he is falls into the idealist camp more. However, he does agree with the partial preterist on some fulfilled prophecies in Matthew 24, but not all. I'm hearing all sorts of explanations of partial preterist, and even declaring that R.C. Sproul is one. Do partial preterist claim that all prophecies except for the 2nd Coming is fulfilled by 70 A.D?

It is my understanding that Hendriksen was an Amillennialist. We have often been called "partial Preterists", but that is a rather nebulas term. Most of the apocalyptic prophecies are yet to be fulfilled, IMO. How many (few) have come and gone is debatable.

William Hendriksen was the author of many books and commentaries, among them "More Than Conquerors" (which I greatly enjoyed), and definitely Amillennial. But could you comment a little more regarding Matthew 24, as that would be of great interest to me?

David Engelsma has an excellent presentation where he uses Matthew 24 which you can read here: A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism.

Thank you. I've now completed the section(s) of the article with reference to Matthew 24, and look forward to reading the entire (lengthy) article, as eschatology is an interest of mine. I was just wondering what explanation of Mat. 24 it was that had caught John's attention, as I've come across some very unusual ones, including the one by Kik described in the article linked.

I'm at a loss to understand biblical eschatology.

I believe what is written in Scripture on this and every other subject, but, to a perhaps greater degree than most others, and also to a greater degree than other biblical topics, I struggle to understand it.

By default I tend toward a mix of mostly amillenialism but with very slight partial preterist leanings. E.g., I can see how a part of Matt. 24 and other prophecy could refer at least in part to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But there remains a great deal that could not, at least, not without jumping through some of the same kinds of eisegetical hoops more characteristic of Dispensationalists.

Is it OK that I simply believe the words of Scripture for now, and leave the more detailed study of end times until a later time when I have better grasped the fundamentals of the Cross, of Mercy, of repentance and faith, and of love toward God and others? Not that eschatology is unimportant, but it just seems like a less urgent area of study because of my failings in seemingly more important areas, as well as the fact that I'm just not smart enough to get much of it?

jta

I have been enjoying the following series on the book of Revelation. Perhaps it might help?

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....Series&keyworddesc=Revelation+Series

Tom

I prefer the term "orthodox preterist" to the term "partial preterist."

We don't call hyper-Calvinists "full Calvinists" and Calvinists "partial Calvinist."

Engelsma does a good job on explaining the wrongs of those in the reconstruction movement in their views of postmillennial, partial preterist, etc; but it seems to me that some are using partial preterism today in ways to advocate postmillennialism, John's writings before 70 AD, the super importance of 70 AD among others. Many like myself would agree that some of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled, but not most. Now, their could be advanced that there is a double fulfillment, but not that most has been fulfilled.

Is there a definitive definition of partial preterist? I tend to think it is not stationary in how it is being used.

Perhaps this Theopedia short article will help you? https://www.theopedia.com/preterism

Many, many years ago, our church did a Wednesday-night Bible-study series on eschatology which lasted eleven months. After some introductory comments, we began by looking at several scriptures revealing the Biblical dichotomy between "this age"/"the age to come", "this age"/"that age", etc., showing that scripture knows of only two ages, this present evil age, and the New Heavens and New Earth, leaving no room for any third age or millennium.

Then, for the first major section of scripture to be studied, we looked not at Revelation as might be expected, nor even at Daniel, but rather at Matthew 24. The view presented was somewhat unusual, and the pastor said it was taken from a book titled "The Millenium: A Comprehensive Study of the Facts and Fancies of That Most Popular Doctrine" (note spelling: 'Millenium'), by Harry Reigart Miller. I have searched the Internet repeatedly for this book without success. The extremely little information I could find, seems to indicate that it has been out of print for a very long time, and does not seem to be available anywhere. Does anyone here have any knowledge of, or have even heard of, this book?