Right on this thread. I posted a couple comments on Aaron’s last post and they went poof! Probably something I did. it seems to be working fine now.
Ok - let us know if it happens again without finger trouble from yourself 
I would also identify myself as partial preterist, post-millennial, and while not Calvinist, would agree with Aaron on the sovereignty issues. That’s one thing I believe Calvinism got (mostly) right.
I forget where I read it now, but I remember reading something about that word “wages” being a poor translation. The meaning behind the Greek word for “wages” is more along the lines of something that you receive or experience in an ongoing way than “wages”, which is more like a “reward” at the end of something. If I find it again, I’ll post it here.
But wages doesn’t really communicate the idea, especially when you consider the contrast. The wages of sin is death (experience of separation), but the free gift of God is aionian/os life. Scripture defines aionios life as knowing God.
So we are in a death state when we experience relational separation from God as the result of sin, but He has conquered that through His free gift of knowing Him. Thus, it doesn’t seem to me to be a necessarily eschatological statement, per se.
Ran,
Are you sure? Because I don’t see any comments on Aaron’s last post yet.
I checked the moderator logs to be sure, and no one has deleted any posts from this thread. (Only three posts have been deleted since Dec 03 at all, and in all cases they were deleted by the contributors themselves.)
Sometimes when I’m previewing something to make sure it’s formatted properly, I’ll forget (due to a phone call or some other interruption or accident) that I still have to submit it. I’ve lost at least two posts that way myself over the past year! (Because visually on the screen it looks ‘submitted’ already, but I haven’t scrolled down far enough to see the difference with the buttons still running.)
Also you may have ‘saved it’ or ‘previewed’ it by accident.
I’ve started trying to catch up on the preterism-related threads; and since I’m done with year-end calcs at work, I ought to be able to proceed along relatively quickly now.
I’m not terribly sure where to begin on this thread, though; especially since it’s one of the earlier ones, and subsequent threads might be doing a better job of getting into various details.
The question of preterism has some obvious connotations for universalism, insofar as universalism entails being saved (perhaps ‘also’) from the wrath of God. But of course if Christ returns in judgment without tribulation leading up to Christ’s return, this doesn’t necessarily mean Christ returns without wrath against sinners, even hopeless wrath. (Which by the way is why most preterists aren’t universalists. 
) It would only mean God doesn’t kick off the wrathing early.
Or, it would mean God has already done all the wrathing He’s going to do, whether that is against Christ somehow for some reason, or against unbelieving Jews during (and after) the fall of Jerusalem, or whatever–thus fulfilling the very numerous scriptural prophecies of the wrath of God leading into the coming of the Messiah establishing Himself publicly in final authority (and/or the Day of the Lord to come).
So it makes a difference as to some particular details of how God will fulfill universalism historically, but not so much of a difference in universalism itself (or non-universalism either)–which is why universalists, as well as non-universalists, can be preterists or non-preterists, without shifting out of their basic soteriological category (Calv/Arm/Kath, broadly speaking.)
On the other hand, as Ran demonstrates, the particular theological ground for universal salvation may make a big difference in expectation about how God fulfills universalism later.
So I agree that the topic is of direct and (at least somewhat) important relevance to God’s own practice of universalism. (Or of Arminianism or of Calvinism, categorically speaking, if either of those options are true instead.)
Unfortunately, that all doesn’t help me get any closer to figuring out where to begin commenting yet! 
I mean, I very much want to comment on the exchange concerning Mark 9 (which I also consider hugely important for universalism), but that doesn’t seem to have much of anything to do with preterism per se pro or con. (Has that discussion been continued in another thread yet? I may create a new thread for it if not…)
And I am, as usual , very curious about how a penal substitutionist who seems to claim (even strenuously so) that the cross has completely expended and satisfied the wrath of God (the Father–and the Son and the Spirit as well??) against sin and sinners, can go on to (apparently?) claim that the common NT prophecies about a still-forthcoming wrath-of-God event were even partially (much moreso fully!) fulfilled by the events of 70CE against unbelieving Jews. (I’ve asked Ran about this before, more than once–three or four times maybe–and I don’t recall yet getting an answer.)
But this doesn’t necessarily count in favor of preterism exactly, now that I think of it. If God’s wrath against sin has been totally expended already, then of course whatever He does with (or to?) sinners afterward must not involve any wrath at all toward them. But this would only mean that if tribulations happen leading up to the final coming of Christ, then they are either not instigated by God in any way, or at least not instigated by God in any wrath at all. Consequently, any further discussion on the factual and logical merits of the theory (or correction about misunderstood details of the theory) wouldn’t necessarily have anything to do with preterism either, pro or con. (Was this objection, as exemplified by Aaron’s question, finally addressed in another thread yet? If so, a link would be appreciated! 
)
I thought your explication of how ‘death’ is used by St. Paul in the Romans reference to the wages of sin, was pretty on-spot, Aaron. Although I think I’d have to say, on the other hand, that any immortality of ours (including that of our first ancestors, if they had any) is always conditional anyway. If “Adam and Eve” were immortal, it wasn’t because God created them as having the property of immortality; and if God created them mortal (which strictly speaking I would agree with, by the way) that doesn’t mean they would have eventually died even in an unfallen union with God. I think the text indicates well enough that death was part of their punishment, since (in the imagery of the story, whatever the imagery actually stands for historically) they are driven away from the Tree of Life lest they eat of it (or continue eating of it) in their fallen state and live forever.
Which is interesting and worth discussing–but I’m not sure it counts one way or another for or against preterism again! (I don’t mean that it certainly doesn’t; only that I can’t, at the moment, figure out how to apply it that way.)
Maybe the most relevant thing I can say in regard to preterism (per se), and also in regard to discussions in this thread, is that I’ve seen at least two people (Mel and WMB2003; maybe also Aaron? and Ran?) consider themselves to be “partial preterists”.
Leaving aside the question of how a “full preterism” would involve a merely spiritual resurrection (and some other things of that sort–which to me has nothing to do with preterism per se at all): I don’t really see (and never have seen) a problem with the prophecies of a coming cataclysm being partially fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed, several of the prophecies of Christ seem geared explicitly (and solely?) to this.
But I do have a problem with trying to claim that all the forthcoming cataclysm prophecies of the NT apply only to some events (whether the Fall of Jerusalem or otherwise) which have already happened yet. Just like I don’t consider the OT prophecies about cataclysms preceding and attending the forthcoming Day of the Lord to have been completely fulfilled by various army invasions which they were also literally associated with.
Probably other threads are discussing details about this, pro and con, by now. I guess I just want to make sure that preterists understand that non-preterists are trying to take the scriptures seriously as to details and contexts, too. Which is why practically all non-preterists of my experience (including myself) are fine with admitting a partial fulfillment at the downfall of Jerusalem: that’s where we think, and agree, the exegetical data points.
We just think that the data and the contexts also point beyond that historical event, to another forthcoming historical cataclysm. (Or even more than one!) One even worse than the Fall of Jerusalem, and global in scope.
Admittedly, if our theology constrained against that on prior grounds, then we’d have to reject that as an option. (Mine doesn’t; but it doesn’t necessarily require it, either.) But I think, and find, that rejecting some kind of tribulation still to come as a result of sin (and at least authorized, moreso enacted by God), ends up requiring a person to ignore or over-re-interpret too much scriptural data in too artificial a fashion. A more complex eschatology can accept and incorporate more data with fewer problems.
Which I suppose (and hope!) other more particular threads will be, and have been (in my absence elsewhere), addressing.
I am a partial preterist, prophesy has been partially fulfilled from 70AD until today and to come. First comes the physical and then the spiritual. The spiritual affects of 70AD is still being felt 2000 years later and applicable to future fulfillment of spiritual promises.
I don’t know if this helps at all, Jason, but I think most partial preterists (sometimes referring to themselves as orthodox preterists 
) See most of what we typically think of as eschatological events as already having been fulfilled around the events of 70 AD, but see some certain obvious things (such as the complete elimination of sin, The son turning over the kingdom to the Father, God becoming all in all, etc.) as clearly not having been fulfilled yet. For a summary discussion of the partial preterist POV from a non-universalist perspective, you can go to this website:
tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html
Unfortunately, the link to the more in-depth article series is currently broken, perhaps they will get it fixed eventually…
I actually began to subscribe to the (partial) preterist view before I became a universalist, but looking back on it, I think it actually set me up to better see UR. Having said that, I don’t think UR absolutely requires PP (partial preterism 
), but it does seem to dovetail nicely with the explanation of quite a few of the eschatological wrath statements that tend to get in the way when one is considering UR.
I never had preterist understanding until the revelation of Universalism.
Jesus did not speak to all people, all the time. Depending on his audience, he was literally talking about Israel and the people living in Jerusalem. However, God’s promises don’t stop there, there was a new mandate and with that different prophesy which affects us today which was in affect after he cancelled the Law to the Cross and reconciled all mankind to Him, making disciples of all nations who are already baptized in Him. It all depends on the audience our Lord was speaking to, which dictates whether he was talking about 70AD, or spiritual living.
Unfortunately, we have been taught different things, and so it takes some time to reorganize our understanding to fit the facts.
I’ve always admitted to that dilemma - in fact, I wrote something within this particular forum to that effect. My best explanation is that to fulfill all the scripture against Israel (all scripture must be fulfilled) even after Christ’s murder but including that murder in the charges against them - that Christ’s sacrifice did not cover, could not cover, the breaking of scripture.
Death is not wrath - it’s death - the last enemy of mankind. In that regard all of Israel will be saved - though that particular generation was not spared Christ’s sword coming down on them to fulfill scripture.
So the dilemma disperses in the big picture - God never stored up wrath for mankind in general - he stored up salvation for mankind and presented His Son at just the right time. So correctly put: penal substitution is about satisfying the justice of God in freeing mankind from death - His wrath against Israel was an act of justice, but it was not and could not be appeased without breaking scripture.
In Rev, we find that that generation has a song no one else can learn - it was that unique a situation. Trying to draw a general, across-the-board theology from that situation is a big mistake - but many attempt it.
The dilemma disappears completely when trying to appoint wrath on every generation of every race - there is no dilemma because there is no wrath on mankind in general. The burden of proof then shifts to proving God can ignore the Cross and His Justice is not propitiated. The Gospel suffers immeasurably in that attempt.
I’ve occasionally entertained the view that the “tree of life” could possibly be understood as being the conditional means by which the natural lives of Adam and Eve (and potentially their mortal posterity) could be indefinitely prolonged, so that they could, theoretically, never die. However, what has kept me from settling on this view is that it would appear that the “life” which this tree is said to bestow should be understood within the narrative as somehow corresponding to the “death” that Adam and Eve experienced on the day they transgressed - which doesn’t seem to have had any more to do with natural death than the “death” which Paul says he died in Romans 7:9.
I do consider myself a “partial preterist,” but I’m probably much closer to “full” preterism than the typical, partial preterist today. For example, I understand Rev 21-22 to be a figurative description of the age of the Messianic reign, which I understand to have commenced in 70 AD. Consequently, I see the “new heavens and new earth” as a present reality, and the “new Jerusalem” as symbolic of God’s reign among his New Covenant people (i.e., the Church). What distinguishes me from the “full preterist” (or “pantelist”) is that I understand Scripture to teach that Jesus’ Messianic reign has both a beginning and an end, and that it hasn’t ended yet. I view the resurrection of the dead and the reconciliation of all people to God as taking place at the end of Christ’s reign, and do not see any divine punishment as extending beyond this future time.
As far as multiple fulfillments go, here’s my view: Even those who, for whatever reasons, believe that certain prophecies (the Olivet Discourse, for instance) should be understood as having more than one fulfillment (e.g., a primary and a secondary) would agree that not all (or even most) prophecies in Scripture should be thus understood. In fact, I’d say that while there are numerous examples in Scripture of prophecies that clearly have (and can only have) a single fulfillment in history, there are few undisputed examples of prophecies having double, multiple or “cyclical” fulfillments. I think this fact alone should caution us against assuming that any given prophecy has, or might have, more than one fulfillment.
So my approach to understanding prophecy is basically this: unless we are given some kind of revelation or inspired commentary in Scripture on how a prophecy has been fulfilled in more than one sense, I don’t think we’re in a position to assume that any prophecy has more than one fulfillment, or to speculate on how it might. While some might see a lack of such revelation or inspired commentary as giving the reader a certain amount of freedom to view any prophecy they choose as having multiple fulfillments, I think the exact opposite is the case. I believe every prophecy which Scripture does not reveal as having been fulfilled should be viewed by the reader in the simplest and most straight-forward (though not necessarily literal!) way possible - i.e., as pointing to a single period or event in history. Otherwise, each additional prophetic fulfillment on which we speculate makes all fulfillments that much less specific, and consequently that much more difficult to confirm as having had (or as ever having) actual, historical fulfillment.
Moreover, it seems to be the case that the idea of multiple fulfillments is unjustifiably imposed upon certain prophetic texts simply because the reader already presupposes a future (and perhaps more “global”) fulfillment. Of course, it could perhaps be said that those who understand a prophecy as having a single fulfillment may do so because they already presuppose a past fulfillment - but I think if we’re going to err in our understanding of prophecy it should be because we did not go beyond that on which Scripture is silent in regards to there being more than one fulfillment, and not because we were involved in unjustified speculation (which I think would be the case if the language of the text itself does not demand more than one fulfillment - and of which I view the Olivet Discourse as being a prime example ).
I’m pretty much there with you Aaron; there does seem to be a bit of wiggle-room within the extent of partial preterism.
My understanding on multiple fulfillments is that most (many?) partial preterists would say there isn’t a necessity for multiple fulfillments of any given prophecy (at least in a literal sense), but they wouldn’t necessarily rule them out.
I simply can’t bring myself to full preterism (essentially Hymenaeism), which Paul speaks directly against. To be a full preterist, you have to claim that the resurrection has already occurred. (In other words, claim there is no literal resurrection, it’s only spiritual).
But Paul forcefully emphasizes that this destroys the literal resurrection of Christ, and thus the Gospel.
Exactly. I think our faith should be firmly grounded in the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead and the consequent future, literal resurrection (or “change” for those who will be found alive) of all for whom Christ died. This is the hope in which believers are saved (Rom 8:24). And as long as passages such as 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4:13-18 remain in my Bible, I have no fear of ever being seduced by the arguments of “full preterists”
The difference between full and partial preterism hinges primarily on the final return of Christ and the resurrection of mankind. The ‘full’ preterists lump his judgment on Israel in 70ad and The Return together. Partial preterists (since the early church fathers) expect Him to return at any moment - because He CAN return at any moment - without Matt 24:34 and all ‘those things’ needed to be repeated again. As a thief in the night. Christ’s return will be as sudden and unexpected as the instantaneous change in the living into resurrected humans will be.
So instead of looking for ‘signs’ as a signal to flee (as given to the Jerusalem church in 70ad) - partial preterists stress readiness to meet Christ - not disaster. One can’t flee the resurrection!
So many ‘partials’ see Matt 24-25 as describing both returns. One coming with plenty of warning - the other instantaneous. The thief in the night won’t come ringing the doorbell. The shift in that discussion occurs at Matt 24:36.
Meanwhile, the tribbies spent their time reading the ‘signs’ and predicting His Return. Something Christ told them NOT to do. Because of that disobedience, they are not as ready because this or that must happen first. Christ CAN’T return until they see those things. Te ‘red light’ gospel of the tribbies is different from the ‘green light’ Gospel of the orthodox preterists.
So when Revelation starts out by saying what will ‘SOON’ happen - it is either a book primarily about 70ad or an arrogant display of disobedience in predicting Christ’s final return in warning that generation.
If I understand you correctly, it would seem that this would fit with my understanding of the wrath situation. I believe we’re told that in whatever “day of wrath” there was, is or may be to come, that we store it up for ourselves. I’ll need to go back and read the passage again to get the fuller sense of what was being said there, but off the top of my head, I’d say that it would seem the only wrath left is that which we heap upon ourselves. “Do not be deceived, for God is not mocked, a man reaps what he sows.” I believe that there is something that God has built into his universe that amounts to the theological equivalent of “what goes around, comes around”.
At any rate, I’m wondering out loud if this could be the wrath stored up for ourselves, assuming a non-preterist understanding of the “storing up wrath for the day of wrath” scenario.
edit
Well on second thought after reading Rom. 2, it would seem that this situation is a bit different:
Paul is talking to the Jews here, and making the point that in whatever we are judging another in, we are demonstrating our own guilt of. In other words, Paul is speaking against hypocrisy here. In verses 2-9, Paul seems to be making the point that we need to be cautious of judging others for doing the same things we do, because if we think that we’re immune from that same judgment, we’ve got “another think coming”. He warns us not to be ignorant of the fact that it is God’s kindness that leads to repentance, and if our hearts are hard and unrepentant, we are hoarding for ourselves “indignation in the day of indignation and revelation of the just judgment of God who will be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those who by endurance in good acts are seeking glory and honer and incorruption, life eonian, yet to those of faction and stubborn, indeed, as to the truth-yet persuaded to injustice; indignation and fury, affliction and distress on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and of the Greek, yet glory and honor and peace to every worker of good… For there is no partiality with God”.
This seems to me to fit very well with, if not a preterist interpretation, then at least one in which we need not inject afterlife punishment, unless we’re going to insist that the day of wrath or indignation (as the CLV puts it) is yet future. This passage seems to be easily read to indicate that this could be an ongoing process in the here and now, or there and then. The words fury, affliction and distress on every soul affecting evil sounds like something that could easily happen in this life, or in the lifetime of the listeners to whom Paul was speaking here.
The “full preterist” puts everything plus the kitchen sink into 37 years.
God’s Word is Christ and Christ “IS, WAS, and WILL BE.”
The Word is neither dispensational in character, nor is it preterist. A dispensationalist, or a preterist, knows only one third of who Christ is. So neither knows the fullness there of .
“You search the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you will find the Life of the Ages; and it is those Scriptures that yield testimony concerning me” Jn 5:39
Let’s not box God in!
Of course, that’s true - as far as it goes. People can make a shipwreck out of their lives - but the misery they cause to those around them must be reaped (by them) as well. ‘You reaped this, therefore, you must have sown it.’ is an argument best left to Job’s companions.
What we all reap is death. There’s no mocking God in that sentence. But death is not wrath - as it turns out. We reap the resurrection for what WE have sown? Back to Job’s answer: ‘I sinned, and perverted what was right, but I did not get what I deserved.’
Sure, Ran. The reaping what we sow comment would certainly seem to be necessarily limited to this life, because what we all reap (ultimately) is death upon our exit from it. Thank God for the resurrection, and that that state is not permanent!
Wow,
Luv all the responses from my initial posting. I was surprised to find that Milton Terry is a preterist. His view is very similar to James Stuart Russell’s view. Milton says that Paul is talking about an imminent return of Christ in the Phillippians reference to the parousia. So he concludes the return must have been limited to a special few, not all christians.
I thought it was interesting but I’m not sure of a lot of things related to the extent to which we should preterate these passages.
I did appreciate the references to a future coming of Christ. They were helpful, as that has been one of my concerns. I too thought full pretrism smacks of gnosticism. Speaking of gnostics, I was surprised to learn that many of them were universalists too.
As a former presbyterian minister I’m coming from the calvinistic side. I liked Talbot’s book but the Calvin bashing was bothersome. I found his arguments from free will to be very weak but I liked his discussion on the impact of presuppositions on exegesis. Particularly where he remarks that Hodge’s presupposition of ET in Thess to disprove Rom 5 could just as easily be turned on its head.
Hey, wmb2003, I am another Calvinist & Postmilenialist. We need to get in contact and chat.
I believe that all are save in Christ. That does not mean that they may suffer in this life and in their flesh, God’s punishments for the sins they make now. Those punishments are physical (, loss of money, house, family, health, even death), emotional (depression and other emotional issues), and spiritual (separation from God). Though such punishments do not have to do with the salvation of their souls, but ways in which God may bring them back to Him.
I believe that, when the Biblie talks about salvation by, or through works, it is talking about physical, emotional or spiritual salvation but not salvation from eternal condemnation.
On the other hand, people, who, on this life, have not accepted, or not been able to accept the Gospel, will end before God’s Perfect Character. They will be confronted by his pure character and understand their need of Christ. Then, by faith, they will accept that only through Christ’s sacrifice they are accepted by the Father and will be saved. Thus God is love and also a consuming fire.
The judgement of the saved in this life will be, not to accept Christ, but to look at God’s sainctity (consuming fire) and know what they have done with the gifts that they received from God and how they have used. I consider this like in a school, or college graduation. All will graduate, some with honors, but others will not. The ones who have honors will be able to receive blessings that the ones who did not receive honors will not.
One way or the other, all will be befoere God’s judgement and all will receive blessings according to God’s grace.