Full Preterism vs.
Part 1: Introduction
By Nathan DuBois
Preterism vs. Idealism - Part One : Introduction
Part Two - Full Preterism's Achilles Heel
Part Three - Full Preterism's "New" Gospel
Full Preterism vs. Idealism: Part Four : Full
Preterism's Single Dimension Focus
My Thoughts and
Understanding of Preterist Idealism
God, The Judge of the Heart
Why I Needed to Repent: A Letter to a
Friend... Among Friends |
The Nature of the Christ: The Dilema of Chronology |
Scripture Interprets Scripture: Part One - The Covenants, The Jerusalems,
The Flesh and The Spirit |
Response to "Expectations Demand a Rapture"
Full Preterism - The view that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled
by the year 70
Consistent Cessationism - Determining what things (such as
speaking in tongues) ceased in AD70
Idealism (Pret) -
The view that the substance of prophetic fulfillment is found "in
Christ" not "in history"
Reformed Soteriology - Doctrines of salvation commonly called
(Pret) - Because the devil, death, sin and law were destroyed in
AD70, there is no more separation between any person and God.
Faith has been turned to sight.
Full Preterism vs. Idealism, Part I : Introduction
The question has been raised with the intent of learning the difference
between Full Preterism and Idealism. The Full Preterism being discussed is
more directly aimed at the Reformed Full Preterist interpretation. In this
stage of Full Preterism, which I have recently come out of, there is a
tendency to hold onto Reformed soteriology in the face of the Full Preterists
who would take the view all the way to Universalism. I was one of those preterists
(with that tendency). It was clear to me that Universalism was not correct according
to Romans, but it was also abundantly clear that Full Preterism was
crumbling from beneath me in the light of Consistent Cessationism.
to battle the Universalist logical conclusions of Consistent Cessationist
Full Preterism, many Cessationist believers are giving ground to the idea
that all Biblical offices, gifts, and patterns still continue in a milder,
less structured sort of way. For instance, there are no teachers and
preachers, but there are still elders that teach. There is also the debate
that the gifts of the Spirit are not applicable because they were in part,
but the Spirit still moves people to Christ as He did in the transition
period. In fact, the Spirit always moved the elect to God and the truth even
before the New testament time frame.
of the Idealist understandings I hold are being grasped by those Full
Preterists who were close to “throwing out the baby with the bath water”
because they were consistently following the logical conclusions to Full
Preterism. However, rather than give in to Universalism, because
Universalism is clearly against scripture, they grabbed back (or just held
on tighter to) their Reformed soteriology while maintaining a Full Preterist
position, creating a very inconsistent version of Full Preterism and back
tracking on many of the leanings they were headed toward when following the
Full Preterist logic.
I was in exactly this same boat. There are some basic logical conclusions to
Full Preterism that cannot be ignored. Some may try to excuse or wiggle out
of the conclusions by going back to their incorrect denominational mindset,
but none the less, these conclusions are the only logical answer to many
questions in the Full preterist framework. I will address these in this
study but first I want to lay down a few rules that show the weakness of
1. If the same punishment is declared for
(2) agencies in scripture, then the SAME RESULT must ensue for both
2. If something arrived for a “special
purpose,” and did not exist in the actions of God on earth prior to that
point, then they MUST CEASE when the purpose for their existence is taken
away or completed. If they DO NOT cease, they were always in existence, and
were only being revealed in a new way during that “special purpose”
timeframe, which then consistently allows them to continue afterward.
3. Scripture continues to interpret
scripture. Like Matthew parallels Luke concerning the same judgment, so
other passages parallel each other when talking of the same event.
4. God’s attributes come into play for
everything. God does not change and His character does not change. Just
because God acted in time, those actions did not benefit, make different,
cause change to, or halt His ways. He is the same today as He was in
5. Man and God MUST be viewed differently.
Just because man and the nature of humanity follows a pattern, does not mean
God follows that same pattern in respect to HIS nature. Until made perfect
in Christ, man is always finite, the ways of nature are always finite. God
has always been infinite. His ways and His holiness always was. “I AM” is
about the most literal description for God I can think of.
6. All attributes of God apply to Christ.
Most of what I wrote above would be easily agreed to by the Reformed Full Preterist. There are maybe a couple they would dispute because they know why
I say it and know where I am heading. It doesn’t make the logic any less
true. Examples for each rule will be contrasted in this explanation of the
(2) views that I am going to discuss (FP vs. PI).
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This introduction to what I am going to write is by no means meant to insult
or enrage anyone. I have been asked to address the difference between Full
Preterism and Preterist Idealism. I am writing from personal experience, 8
years worth, of being an active participant in the Full Preterist circle. I
am writing about views I held and tendencies I saw in myself and others.
This does not mean I think myself better than others. This does not mean I
think I am further evolved or wiser. It simply means I have been granted a
different perspective on Preterism. I saw the tendencies and I turned away
from them. I could find no consistent, satisfactory, alternative answers to
the questions raised against the logical conclusions of Full Preterism.
Further more, the Bible was being viewed as a book that I needed to pick
apart and decide what applied and what didn’t apply. What ceased in AD 70
and what did not. With those cessations, what can I continue to do or not do
as a member of the Kingdom.
Lastly, I came up with an important conclusion. Any theology that breeds an
attempt to define love as anything other than “self sacrifice,” is a VERY
WRONG theology. this led to the most inconsistent application of Full
Preterism that I have seen yet. It is the biggest factor in my embrace of
Idealism over Full Preterism and I will discuss that in length throughout
this work I am embarking on.
I am embarking on a big work. I hope everyone has patience with me i this,
and I will release each segment at it’s own time. I will not, however,
respond to each individual segment until the whole is complete. So please
bear with me.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
Date: 13 Jun 2007
Preterist, Historicist and Futurist positions do not seem to fit
Revelation. One should probably let the Scriptures speak for
themselves and not attempt to force assumptions on Scripture.
Speculation undermines one's credibility. I am in the process of
studying Revelation and input would be appreciated. God bless.
Dr. John E. Russell
Date: 09 Jul 2007
there is an obvious flaw here, one i have seen repeatedly.
Speaking as a calvinist and as an amillinialist, i am not a
cessasionist. The flaw is the use of and reliance on logic. As
fallen cratures our logic is fallen. When we see things in
scripture that appear to contradict each other we surely need to
be careful of arguing ourselves into a corner with no room to
manuover. No human has the monopoly on truth ......... but i
accept that, that doesnt mean we shouldnt search for it. However
to go back to my point ...... the trinity is illogical, no
amount of logic can explain it. Likewise because partial
cessasionism doesnt fit into a neat box does that mean it cannot
be true ? it seems ot me that many of our theological arguments
come about because we fail to think outside the box.