Is Partial Preterism a New Perspective?

[Tri Unity]

Unlike Full Preterism, which denies the FUTURE second coming of Jesus; Partial Preterism holds that the …“Second coming and the resurrection of the dead …have not yet occurred.†(Wikipedia) This view, like futurists (of which I am) upholds the future coming of Jesus. One of the greatest advocates of this body of doctrine is N. T. Wright, a British New Testament scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England (until his retirement in 2010). Wright is a pioneer of the New Perspective Movement - which seeks to re-write many of the New Testament perspectives of traditional protestant doctrines and teachings. (Wikipedia) ​

...I would be interested to know how others have dealt with these teachings.​

 

[Hitch]

Unlike Full Preterism, which denies the FUTURE second coming of Jesus; Partial Preterism holds that the …“Second coming and the resurrection of the dead …have not yet occurred.†(Wikipedia) This view, like futurists (of which I am) upholds the future coming of Jesus. One of the greatest advocates of this body of doctrine is N. T. Wright, a British New Testament scholar and the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England (until his retirement in 2010). Wright is a pioneer of the New Perspective Movement - which seeks to re-write many of the New Testament perspectives of traditional protestant doctrines and teachings. (Wikipedia) ​

...I would be interested to know how others have dealt with these teachings.​

Which teachings?

 

[Tri Unity]

Which teachings?

See the OP.

 

[Tri Unity]

A forerunner of Preterism developed in the 4th century by a heretic named Marcellus of Galacia (Ancyra). Hillary of Poitiers mentions this heretic:

“For in our days there has arisen a certain Marcellus of Galatia, the most execrable of all heretics, who with a sacrilegious mind, profane mouth and incorrigible argumentativeness means to limit the Lord Christ’s everlasting, eternal and timeless reign, saying that he began to reign four hundred years ago, and shall end at the dissolution of the present world. …From which it is manifest and clear that he is a heretic. Mingling his own assertions with certain foulness and making a single melody of the aforesaid, he has, like the foolish Galatian he is, turned aside to another gospel…â€
​

This was early Preterism which was condemned as heresy. His followers were called Marcellians. Marcellians believed that Christ’s reign was not to be expected in the future, for it had already begun in the 1st century. This view was condemned in the First Ecumenical Council, and Marcellus was excommunicated as a heretic and deposed of his bishopric.

 

[Stormcrow]

means to limit the Lord Christ’s everlasting, eternal and timeless reign, saying that he began to reign four hundred years ago, and shall end at the dissolution of the present world.

This isn't preterism in any form. All preterism teaches Christ's reign began in the first century and is eternal. It has no end.

Stop trying to smear people and beliefs you don't understand.

 

[Free]

A forerunner of Preterism developed in the 4th century by a heretic named Marcellus of Galacia (Ancyra). Hillary of Poitiers mentions this heretic:

“For in our days there has arisen a certain Marcellus of Galatia, the most execrable of all heretics, who with a sacrilegious mind, profane mouth and incorrigible argumentativeness means to limit the Lord Christ’s everlasting, eternal and timeless reign, saying that he began to reign four hundred years ago, and shall end at the dissolution of the present world. …From which it is manifest and clear that he is a heretic. Mingling his own assertions with certain foulness and making a single melody of the aforesaid, he has, like the foolish Galatian he is, turned aside to another gospel…â€
​

This was early Preterism which was condemned as heresy. His followers were called Marcellians. Marcellians believed that Christ’s reign was not to be expected in the future, for it had already begun in the 1st century. This view was condemned in the First Ecumenical Council, and Marcellus was excommunicated as a heretic and deposed of his bishopric.

It seems from that quote that his heresy wasn't his claim that Christ's reign had already begun but rather that it would end.

 

[Tri Unity]

It seems from that quote that his heresy wasn't his claim that Christ's reign had already begun but rather that it would end.

Hillary firmly upheld the Nicene Creed which believed that Jesus was to return to earth to bring about the judgement and resurrection. Marcellus believed the opposite, that Christ's reign had already begun, as do full preterists, and that it (Christ's reign) was going to end at the time of the destruction of the world. When the Nicene Creed was formulated it had the Marcellians in mind when it declared the expectation that "he shall come to judge the quick and the dead." The Second Ecumenical Council added the words: "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Marcellus (and Full Preterist's) cannot completely affirm this, and consequently they were/are regarded as heretics.

 

[Stormcrow]

and that it (Christ's reign) was going to end at the time of the destruction of the world.

This is a futurist belief, not a preterist one. Resorting to dishonest characterizations of what preterists believe only diminishes your credibility.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Stormcrow,

Originally posted by Osgiliath,

The term - "the second coming of Christ" - is not scriptural and cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.

"I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. John 12:46 (NASB)

"If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also. John 14:3 (NASB)

Why must people cherry pick someones post and make it appear that it said something it didn't say.

If you read my post thoroughly, I certainly didn't imply that Christ wouldn't "come again." Quite the contrary. I simply showed that Scripture never once speaks of a "second coming" as being a "single, isolated event" that happened at one specific time in the past, or a "single, isolated event" that WILL happen in the future. Scripture DOES however talk about the PROGRESSIVE REVELATION of the Son of God i.e. - "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Our Lord has already had many comings, and shall continue to have many more. We have limited the comings of Jesus strictly to two because of our unscriptural terms "first coming" and "second coming," but the truth is that He came; He continued to come; He comes; He continues to come; He will come; and He will continue to come! (see Scripture list in my previous post).

There are numerous "comings" and "appearings" of the Lord in the New Testament. BUT THEY DO NOT ALL REFER TO THE SAME EVENT. The word "coming" is very often used in the scriptures of a visitation or manifestation of the Lord to judge or bless or accomplish some aspect of His plan and purpose among His people or in the earth. Christians erroneously believe that every time the Lord says, "I will come," He is speaking of ONE, specific, particular, singular event sometime out in the dim and misty future, or in the distant past.

Scriptures say,

"Behold! He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him" (Revelation1:7).

The phrase; "Behold! He cometh" is from the Greek word ERCHOMAI. It is the third person singular, present indicative. Any reader who knows the conjugation of verbs knows what that means. First, it means HE COMES as a present tense reality. The verb is present indicative. He comes. He is in the act of coming. Behold! He is (now) coming! In other words, He has been coming, He is still in the act of coming, and He continues to come. More than once the coming of the Lord is spoken of in this tense throughout the book of Revelation. It is not something that is limited to a singular parousia in the past, nor is it something that shall happen some time in the future, but instead, it is something that IS.

The majority of Christendom is either looking back to a historical Christ, or forward to a futuristic coming of Christ, and they miss this word ERCHOMAI which means "Behold, HE COMES, He is coming, He continues to come, He will continue to come." It is something that can happen right now. It means that He comes out of the realm of spirit to be manifested in flesh, expressed and revealed in a visible, tangible way to the material creation.

Preterists, Dispensationalists, Futurists, etc. all hem Christ into their own theological box, and this is why they "listen to the music, but never hear the song." They "examine the outer shell, but never taste the kernel within." Christians talk about "Christ IN YOU the hope of glory," "the Kingdom of God is WITHIN you," "Ye are the BODY of Christ," and then turn around and with the next breath say that the "coming" of the Lord is still a distant, singular, future event, or is a singular, past event that happened long ago. They miss the boat completely because of their carnal-minded religious rigidity.

 

[Stormcrow]

First, it means HE COMES as a present tense reality.

Present tense to whom?

It is not something that is limited to a singular parousia in the past, nor is it something that shall happen some time in the future, but instead, it is something that IS.

"Is" to whom?

Christ reigns and has done so since the destruction of Jerusalem, when the kingdom of God was taken away from apostate Israel and given to the Son, who is, has been, and always will be the head of His kingdom: the church.

His "coming into His kingdom" was accomplished then. The coming of Christ into His kingdom on the day of the Lord is a past event for us, and it's this "coming" about which all the apostles wrote, including John in both his letters and the apocalypse.

That was a specific event and is frequently referred to in the NT. It's what all the apostles were waiting for based on the words of Christ Himself.

 

[Stormcrow]

It is something that can happen right now. It means that He comes out of the realm of spirit to be manifested in flesh, expressed and revealed in a visible, tangible way to the material creation.

The church is the body of Christ manifested to the world and He is the head over it. Jesus is enthroned in heaven. There is no need for Him to "put on flesh" to return again. He has given His church the Holy Spirit to represent His kingdom on earth.

You've pulled a single Greek word [erchomai] out of the time and context in which it was written and constructed an entire doctrine out of it that - in this case - is not supported scripturally.

 

[Stormcrow]

There are numerous "comings" and "appearings" of the Lord in the New Testament.

There are only two of which Christ spoke: His first and second "coming." His second coming, mentioned in Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 24:29-31 and others is the one about which the apostolic writers wrote with imminent expectation.

I'd like to know where you get this idea of "numerous comings and appearings" as it relates to apostolic eschatology, because it certainly isn't supported by the letters they wrote.

 

[Tri Unity]

The orthodox doctrines of a Second Coming of Christ were taught by the prophets and Apostles, and they were transferred to the first disciples in the first and second centuries, and then on to all future generations. All of the earliest disciples - after the apostles died - believed Jesus was to come again in the future. This was the doctrine agreed upon by all Christians in the First Ecumenical Council, and anyone who rejected a future return of Christ, such as the Marcellians (a type of Full Preterism), were acknowledged as heretics. Only heretics denied the future Second Coming of Christ, and they still do until this day. The modern Full Preterist doctrine is a continuation of the heresy of Marcellus. This is not intended to offend anyone; I present this as a fact based on Church History. If anyone suffering under the deception of Marcellus wishes to be released, they should approach the elders for healing, forgiveness and prayer.

 

[Stormcrow]

The orthodox doctrines of a Second Coming of Christ were taught by the prophets and Apostles...

Demonstrably untrue, as noted repeatedly and summarized here:

Full preterism correctly places the second coming of Christ before the generation to whom He was addressing the prophecies of His return had passed; while some of His disciples and "those who pierced Him" still lived. This is a view consistent throughout the writings of the apostles in the New Testament, summarized by James:

Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. James 5:7-8 (NASB)

and the writer of Hebrews:

FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. Hebrews 10:37 (NASB)

and John:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. Revelation 1:1-3 (NASB)

And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." Revelation 22:6-7 (NASB)

There are many, many other verses in the NT that Futurists must ignore to support their vacuous beliefs. They froth that preterism is counter to the creeds of the church while - all the time - ignoring the plainly written words of Christ and His apostles as to the timing of His return, best summarized by Christ's own words:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)

Futurism denies the word of God.

You keep wanting to discuss creeds and ecumenical councils instead of Christ's words and those of His apostles. Why?
​

 

[Tri Unity]

Demonstrably untrue...

This is your own unique opinion based on your own unique interpretation of scripture. None of the early church fathers after the apostles died agreed with your unique interpretation. The only person who preached what you preach was a known heretic. You are on your own with the weight and the authority of every Christians in subsequent generations rejecting what you say. That is a fact!

 

[Stormcrow]

Well, if I'm as wrong as you allege, it should be easy enough to show me from scripture where I have departed from the faith.

The church has always believed in the deity of Christ;

True but irrelevant to the topic.

the church has always believed in the resurrection of the dead;

True but irrelevant to the topic.

the church has always believed in the future return of Christ.

True even if wrong and shown to be wrong in the misinterpretation of Irenaeus, as I pointed out in other threads.

But again, the church once believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. The church hasn't always been right. Why you insist on appealing to the authority of the church rather than the authority of scripture to support your view is quite beyond me, but it isn't helping your case.

These are the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Only the heretics have ever challenged the plain simple orthodoxy of the church.

And only disbelievers deny the clear, plainly spoken and written words of Christ and His apostles.

If I'm a heretic for putting the words of Christ before creeds, what does that make someone who denies the words of Christ?

 

[Tri Unity]

Sects like Jehovah's Witnesses have denied the teachings of the Church in every generation and twisted the scriptures to deceive millions of people to reject church history. This is the dilemma of Full Preterism. They have rejected the doctrines of the Church and developed a twisted interpretation which "claims" the bible alone as their authority. The bible does not teach that the Second Coming has already occurred in 70AD. This is a lie created by distorting scriptures, just as Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Stormcrow]

Sects like Jehovah's Witnesses have denied the teachings of the Church in every generation and twisted the scriptures to deceive millions of people to reject church history. This is the dilemma of Full Preterism. They have rejected the doctrines of the Church and developed a twisted interpretation which "claims" the bible alone as their authority. The bible does not teach that the Second Coming has already occurred in 70AD. This is a lie created by distorting scriptures, just as Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Jesus.

You persist in this dishonest characterization that preterists "distort scripture", yet you have never once offered any scripture yourself to justify your false claims.

Instead, you persist in holding church doctrine and creeds up as the final arbiter of truth in these matters and try to defame those with whom you disagree with "guilt by association" attacks.

Why don't you show us all how Preterism is wrong using Christ's words to do it, instead of repeated appeals to church doctrine, creeds, and smears?

 

[Tri Unity]

You persist in this dishonest characterization that preterists "distort scripture", yet you have never once offered any scripture yourself to justify your false claims.

The fact that you follow the pattern of Jehovah's Witnesses in denying church history is enough to refute you.

 

[Stormcrow]

The fact that you follow the pattern of Jehovah's Witnesses in denying church history is enough to refute you.

I rest my case.