Sorry Chad - just edited the above whilst you were replying (oops).
pilgrim, my avatar is ‘Red Will Danaher’ from the movie ‘The Quiet Man’.
My favorite movie of all time! I think it was 1952. John Wayne and John Ford at their best in my humble opinion. Thanks for asking!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask 
Best wishes,
Chad
pilgrim,
We are all in a sense preterists, in that preter means past, We all know of Christ whom was born of a virgin, lived, was crucified on a cross, died and was buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. All has happened.
I personally believe in a full preterist view, (and thus) an understanding that Christ did all that He set out to do is actually good news!!
I totally understand the hesitance of going down that road, but I have no problem with other views. To be honest, I’m not a very good debater, I’m a musician and a fixer of things, not a theologian. I have opinions, but know others do to!
I hope that helps.
Chad
For me, it is the Maltese Falcon.
I can recall all the main characters now 
Thanx Randy!!
Sure there was. It was the time folks would embrace **both ** John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically. 
I don’t get that. The NASB says: “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.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?
IMHO another plausible explanation is that it refers to Jesus ascension which Daniel 7.13 calls the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.
I’m not quite sure I know what you mean exactly by “severing nations”?
Yeah but hang on… you were questioning that there was any “scriptural evidence” as to a broad-scope “confessing that Jesus is Lord” – I simply showed you how the phrasing of Phil 2:10-11 attests that such can happen postmortem, IF THAT’S the requirement you deem necessary; you don’t have to accept what I’m saying, but as a pantelist that would be my way of dealing with your objection… by appealing to the text. And until you can demonstrate from scripture HOW “and those under the earth” somehow does NOT reference “the dead” i.e., postmortem, as would the most seem logical, and thus meet your required “confessing”, then I’d be inclined to stick with my rationale on this.
I refer you again to my comments up the page… “I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists; the only real difference between the two is the amount of torturous time said to be spent therein.”
But if you look at the context wouldn’t that “POSSIBILITY” be ruled out according to the evidence supplied in the text? How is it you guys will play for an ‘argument from silence’ scenario BUT then where there is no silence, i.e., there IS ample scriptural proof to help in determining what’s happening you then conveniently and summarily dismiss it??
Example… IF Mt 16:28 WERE referring to the transfiguration, a whole 6 days following, WHERE were the attendant ANGELS and the subsequent REWARDS so naturally associated with the PAROUSIA? They simply WEREN’T there!
To be honest Pilgrim… ignoring the plain (con)text (v27) which clarifies what immediately follows (v28) to me at least seems at worst disingenuous or dishonest, or at best in itself “unbalanced”. I would really appreciate your answer to this for me, thanks.
Hi qaz
I’m not a futurist. If you think that view is even more pessimistic then I respect your opinion.
No, I made no such implication.
Hi pilgrim!
2016 IS HERE!
You said,
I was wondering, with your answer to qaz,
…saying you are not a futurist, is my preterist view pessimistic, or eaglesway’s view of preterism the pessimistic view?
This fascinates me. Thanks!!
I’ll get back to these questions shortly with a statement of my current viewpoint- (hopefully later today) bit rushed at the mo.
Certainly not. It is a valid possibility and it is believed by many hundreds of eminent theologians.
I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘argument from silence’ nor ‘proof’ (of what??) neither have I knowingly dismissed anything. I have simply stated that either of the two interpretations are valid.
two messengers were seen talking with Jesus, they were even named.
I’m not sure what you mean here, the promise was that some would have a visual experience of Jesus coming in the Glory of His Father. It is perfectly reasonable for some to interpret the transfiguration experience, which occurred in the immediately following verses, as complete fulfillment of Christ’s promise. Obviously the reality of the rewards will be experienced at the actual paruosia. Jesus didn’t say " there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Glory and see Him hand out the rewards" he simply said “there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his Glory”
I’m not trying to convince you Davo, I’m not interested in that. I am replying because you seem to have been disturbed by my post, but I can see both interpretations as valid without imagining that the majority of eminent evangelical theologians are in any way ‘dishonest’ or ‘disingenuous’. I stand by my statement that Preston’s article seems to me to be unbalanced precisely because he is blind to the possible validity of either interpretation.
Hi Chad
As to why I believe full preterism to be pessimistic I’ll just point out some things off the top of my head: it is because, as far as I understand ‘preterism’, requires God to renege on covenants, it dismisses the importance of a bodily resurrection and it rules out the amazing, wonderful hope of a better future when the parousia occurs. There are many beautiful prophesies which if taken at face value, and if yet-to-come, predict a glorious future but full preterists (IMO) claim these were figurative and took place in the 1st Century. Well, Eaglesway hit the nail on the head when he commented on how, in a very real sense, so little has changed since this possible parousia and evil still runs rampant in the world.
Finally, with regards my own position, I believe there is some truth and some error in historicism, preterism and futurism. I am told by an eminent Messianic Jew that these views of prophecy only make sense in the Western mindset and that the 1st Century Jewish view of prophecy was very different. It is this Jewish view to which I hold and I have found a website which explains it adequately. I am not familiar with the organisation who owns the site and I am not in a position to hold an opinion on any of their other pages but this one explains my position (which agrees that 70AD was fulfilling prophecies) and I hope it helps:
inplainsite.org/html/prophec … ology.html
Well, Eaglesway hit the nail on the head when he commented on how, in a very real sense, so little has changed since this possible parousia and evil still runs rampant in the world.
No doubt and Satan who FPs think is gone is stronger then ever and in charge of a world religion.
The idea that Satan still rules the world, and that things will inevitably get to be so bad, IMO sounds doom and gloom; no matter how many people we lead to Christ, no matter how many wars we stand up against, no matter how much we work to free people from addictions and poverty, things will get worse; every step forward will inevitably be met with two steps backwards for humanity.
The point is not that humans on their own will make the world better although humanists believe that but that Christ will return and destroy evil. I see it as something to hope for and I think Paul called it the " blessed hope."
Also although it is true there is less evil in the west then in the past I would disagree there is less evil in the world, I think Satan is very busy.
Sorry about that, my bad pilgrim… that thought was related to the other prêt discussion in tow.
Again I think some honesty isn’t asking too much… every eschatological school of thought acknowledges Mt 16:27-28 as referencing THE “actual” parousia – the only quibble is to the TIMING – prêteristically IT has happened or futuristically IT is yet to happen. It is VERY CLEAR what I’m saying, that is, the “reward each one according to his works” of verse 27 dictates EXACTLY the context of “…there are some standing here who shall not taste death…” of verse 28 when Jesus would come into his Kingdom i.e., the Parousia.
Note: 1) there are NO rewards recorded as given for “works” at ‘the transfiguration’. 2) Jesus in ‘the transfiguration’ had NOT come into his glory as he had not even been crucified, raised and subsequently “glorified”. 3) all schools of prophetic interpretation view Mt 16:27-28 as eschatological… now whatever ‘the transfiguration’ is said to be it wasn’t eschatological on the scale as these preceding verses indicate; any eschaton in view was simply Jesus’ (Lk 9:31).
“seems to me”… well that’s fair enough, but where I was coming from “seems to me” your own position was likewise “unbalanced” in that you seem to discount the fullness of vs. 27 in framing the reality of vs. 28 because anything other than that you can see logically undermines your proposition of grasping ‘the transfiguration’ to discount the “actual” parousia, as aforementioned etc.
Anyway these are interesting discussions. 
An obvious reference to ‘the transfiguration’. My reference to Jesus having “NOT come into his glory” was according to Jn 7:39 which was subsequent to the out-poured Spirit of Pentecost… well past the glory of ‘the transfiguration’.
The “excellent glory” of the transfiguration was if anything a prefiguring or foreshadowing OF the aforementioned “actual” parousia of Mt 16:27-28, NOT the other way around as is popularly claimed. But that said… another option could be that ‘the transfiguration’ may actually have been a prefiguring or foreshadowing of ‘the Ascension’, where Jesus comes into his Kingdom coming “unto the Ancient of Days” (Dan 7:13-14). Both incidents or “vision” (17:9) happen on the mount, with two witnesses/angels/messengers (Moses & Elijah??) in covering clouds etc. Again, vague enough to be a little speculative, but the parousia of 16:27 is definitely detailed enough (as shown) to attest to it as being that which was/is (depending on one’s eschatology) the telos, i.e., the end.
Remember, Israel’s redemption is in view of which this is the mechanics thereof. The greater reconciliation of humanity followed as a result thereof. Now there may well have been present in “the judgment” of goats, non-Jews, believers who, having had their faith “shipwrecked” by turning the way of the Judaisers (the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus) who would in-kind with them pay a hefty price indeed in that prophesied soon coming end.
Remember further… Israel was ‘representative of the nations’ and thus those of the nations having joined her equally representative therein. Read this way from the pantelist perspective (more so than prêterist) “the nations” could actually refer strictly to Israel proper as per these OT notations…
cf. for a demonstration of this identical principle working here… Gen 17:20; 25:16; 48:4, 19
What we 21st century moderns often read in globalised terms was actually closer to the world of 1st century Palestine i.e., “the world of Israel”… hence Jesus’ words:
Jesus’ “world” was Israel… hence “the nations”.