Comments on: Why I Am Partially Preterist

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:17:00 +0000

I went to Talbot for the great philosophy program knowing I disagreed with their theology (beyond dispensationalism, all of the philosophy profs are Molinist/Arminian). When I signed the doctrinal statement, I made it clear that I disagree with dispensationalism. At the time I hadn't come to a position about eschatology, but I knew I didn't like premil and I made that clear as well. They accepted the application without questioning any of the comments I made.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:14:00 +0000

I'm familiar with Gentry's position and, at least at this point, I can't agree with everything he puts forward, but I do need to study his position more before saying much about that.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:12:00 +0000

“I like to point out that it is curious that literalists take verse 34 very figuratively, though it has much more of a “literal” didactic character, and they take all of the apocalyptic stuff very literally, though it is obviously figurative.”
I almost made a comment about that, but I figured I'd already rustled enough feathers 😉

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:18:00 +0000

Being a preterist myself...of the fuller sense, still confirm that the Bible when read naturally, teaches a futurist view of eschatology. That is from the perspective of those that were writing and reading what was being said in the New Testament. Future yes...But in the sense that the events spoken of were near on the horizon. Upon that generation like Jesus said. He did say that those that he was speaking to in Matthew 24 would see all those things take place...including His coming on the clouds with power and great glory and with His angels. Which to me ties in with Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. I just can't see any way to divorce the rewards according to works from the coming on clouds with angels. And not being a dispensationalist, I can't justify infinite gaps in the text. And then there is the "All these things." Which no one yet has been able to convince me that all here needs to mean some or most. Matthew 24:33-34 So you also, when you see all these things, know that He/it is near

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:49:00 +0000

Being a preterist myself…of the fuller sense, still confirm that the Bible when read naturally, teaches a futurist view of eschatology. That is from the perspective of those that were writing and reading what was being said in the New Testament.
Future yes…But in the sense that the events spoken of were near on the horizon. Upon that generation like Jesus said. He did say that those that he was speaking to in Matthew 24 would see all those things take place…including His coming on the clouds with power and great glory and with His angels.
Matthew 24:33-34 So you also, when you see all these things, know that He/it is near

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 00:18:00 +0000

Roger,
I'm currently undecided on this issue, though I've been drawn to the explanatory power of partial preterism and the consistency of amil with my increasingly Reformed theology. In fact, this was the one issue that came up for me in deciding to go to Biola (I'm in the MA Apologetics Program), particularly while going over the doctrinal statement of the school and during advising. I resolved it for myself basically because I'm undecided, and if I'm going to reject premil and futurism, I might as well know what I'm rejecting, whereas if I end up adopting premil (and the only variety I could possibly see myself adopting would be progressive) I'll have a good handle on that, too.
I guess my question is, how do you resolve this doctrinal difference with the position of our school?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:17:00 +0000

Kenneth Gentry's BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL* (www.KennethGentry.com) will greatly enhance your progress (you're on the right track)! He's working on a 1000 page commentary to Revelation [THE DIVORCE OF ISRAEL (origninally: TALE OF TWO CITIES); assuming BJF is indicative of Dr. Gentry's excellent scholarship and writing, it should become “required reading” of every Christian!].
* At your left margin is a link to FIDE-O; Pastor Jason Robertson's March 13, 2007 post is related and quite edifying [also, click links along that page's right margin for Preterist Amillenarian and for 3-4-4 (first/top link in red)].

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:05:00 +0000

WooHoo! Yeah Roger! Glad to hear you are an amil partial preterist. You hit the nail on the head here. If, as is commonly supposed, “this generation” meant “this race” or something else, it would be a completely unique usage of grammar . . . i.e. the vocab and grammar don't permit a change of meaning to “race” nor a far fulfillment. In my more snarky moods I like to point out that it is curious that literalists take verse 34 very figuratively, though it has much more of a “literal” didactic character, and they take all of the apocalyptic stuff very literally, though it is obviously figurative.