Victorious Eschatology: A Partial Preterist View

Front Cover
Worldcast Publishing, Dec 1, 2007 - Religion - 337 pages
1 Review
Here it is - a biblically-based, optimistic view of the future. Along with a historical perspective, Harold R. Eberle and Martin Trench present a clear undrstanding of Matthew 24 and other key passages about the events to precede the return of Jesus Christ. Satan is not going to take over this world. Jesus Christ is Lord and He will reign until every enemy is put under His feet?

What people are saying - Write a review

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Well-written
Modern preterism (invented by Jesuits in the counterreformation) seems to tend toward gnostic docetism that denies spiritual sanctification and sees no place for the body (except
for
the glorification at the 2nd Coming). This would also see no need for the.nations to recognize Christ after 70 A.D. or China,
India, America today..
Another problem w/ so called "partial" Postmillenial preterism is it relies on passages from the Gospel like “taking heaven by
storm w/ great violence” and say this applies to today rather than the 1st century Jews, but preterism would require this to be
fulfilled in the 1st century by the Jews, unless they took the view that it applied then and now, which is idealism. * Further
problems w/ partial-preterism: It unwittingly posits full preterism for the church as the church has reached adulthood and full
maturity –so why could not the same thing happen for the individual Christian (how can the body be perfected w/o the parts?? By
perfected I do not mean w/o sin but as having reached fulness, maturity prior to glorification?) 2. Preterists must reject
ascending confessionalism & orthopraxic progress in history since all has been fulfilled and they must be cessationists (although
some amill preterists or postmill preterists who do not wish to be theonomic opt for “the promptings of the Holy Spirit” but how
can this be when the Holy Spirit's prophetic powers and promptings were only apostolic. ~ 3: Preterists must assert ethical
randomness in history [this is why preterism is incompatible w/ the 3 uses of the law & postmill, as well as the mediatorial
kingship of Christ—only the essential kingship since it is international/papist and denies national covenanting..{because they
cannot believe in providential history and prophetic interpretation of history {Rushdoony who believed in the Christian America
was right to be an idealist}. Postmill preterist is inconsistent unless one is a full preterist because it posits on the hand that
all things have been fulfilled other than the return of Christ (partial-preterism) but states that things are getting better
until Christ returns (postmil) on the other hand.
Preterists Amillenials have little ground to criticize those who unwittingly repine at seemingly unjust, arbitrary providences
of God since they emphatically posit a practical deism w/o the possibility of direct providence and yet they often deny natural
law & common grace! [The 3rd Use of the Law & Active Obedience is denied and regarded as “legislating morality” e.g. keeping the
Sabbath & sinful legalism—bc the law's only purpose is for passive obedience & to restrain sin and point folks to Christ for
individuals—just as they see on a corporate level civil law as being good only for order and unity in society, deterring crime,
but not for advancing the kingdom}. I still see Amil partial preterism as inconsistent because if all things have been fulfilled
(pp) and this is as good as it gets (amillenialism) then why has Christ not returned yet, is he just twiddling his thumbs as the
Amillenial king (to paraphrase Gary Demar).
Other reasons partial preterism is wrong: it leaves no room for the restoration of the Jews & (it denies the reality of the
demonic [they say that Satan was completely bound and defeated at the cross; then why do people still worship Satan!?], since all
has been fulfilled we are not left with the ability to "do even greater works" than Jesus in casting out demons): it denies that
Christ has been tempted and suffered exactly as we are tempted and suffer (if he was tempted by devils and we are not).
Irenaeus and other Church Fathers contradict the dating of Partial-Preterists (even most partial-preterists admit that the early
church fathers disagree with the 70 A.D. date. Also, Matthew 24 is problematic since Jesus said "all things" will be fulfilled "before this generation"
and that the worst tribulation ever
 

Other editions - View all

Bibliographic information