Full preterists believe that the last insurrection of evil has already happened. That is surely wrong. The destruction of Gog and Magog are also accompanied by the complete victory over Satan, and this has clearly not happened. My own view is that the return of Christ has happened (in 70 AD) and that the present age is the Millennium. This is the age when the spring rising from the Temple swells into a river - but the stagnant pools remain salt. Some full preterists take this to mean that the world will never become Christian, but that conflicts with Paul's teaching that in the end God will be "all in all". But if the prophecy refers to the present age, the final release of Satan will draw the Gog and Magog rebels from the "salt pools" and they will be destroyed. But until then, Satan remains active although the reign of Christ will continually increase.
As I do with everyone who I speak to...I respect your position. That does not mean I agree with it, just that you have the right to your opinion.
You are saying that YOU are a "Partial Preterist" instead of a "Full Preterist".
Just so that we are all on the same page........ Preterism is the eschatological view that the “end times” prophecies of the Bible have already been fulfilled. So, when we read what the Bible says about the tribulation, we are reading history. Preterism is divided into two camps: full (or consistent) preterism and partial preterism.
According to YOUR opinion, partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to
“the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.
Then, In order for YOUR partial preterist opinion to maintain YOUR position, you must insist that the book of Revelation was written early, before AD 70 even though the historical facts demand that it was written after 90 AD.
YOU are also required to use an inconsistent hermeneutic when interpreting prophetic passages. According to YOUR preterist view of the end times, chapters 6—18 of Revelation are highly symbolic, not describing any literal events.
WHY????
Because the destruction of Jerusalem did not involve the wholesale destruction of sea life as recorded in Rev. 16:3 or agonizing darkness of Revelation 16:10 so then these judgment must be interpreted by the preterist as purely allegorical. However, according to preterists, chapter 19 is to be understood literally—Jesus Christ will physically return.
But chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically by preterists, while chapters 21—22 are understood literally, at least in part, in that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth.
That has absolutely NO basis in "Hermeneutical Theology"!!!
What does that mean?????
It means, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation is to destroy the basis of interpreting
any of the book correctly.
If the plagues, witnesses, beast, false prophet, millennial kingdom, etc., are all allegorical, then on what basis do we claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal?
That is the failure of preterism—it leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter.
In other words.....the failure of the Preterist theology is THAT IS MAKES THE SCRIPTURES SAY WHAT THE PERSON WANTS THEM TO SAY!!!!
