Preterist vs Fulfillment

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
Amie, I know you have tried to explain this to me before, but I still get confused.

I know there is partial preterist, full preterist, and then fulfilled view.
Do they all mostly deal with and if Jesus is coming again and who is or is not saved?

In just what I have tried to learn, it seems that a full preterist believes all the prophecy has been fulfilled but Jesus is still coming back? Is that right or wrong?

Also, the Fulfilled view, says "all are saved". There is no asking Jesus into your heart kind of thing anymore? Am I understanding this correct?

I may be more confused than what I think.
Any help would be appreciated:eek:
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

I grew up believing that "The Kingdom had come", I didn't have a name for it. I met someone online calling themself a "preterist". That person told me that a "preterist" is someone who sees the prophecies of the bible as fulfilled. I was excited, I thought that I was meeting theological kindred.

Later I learned that other people under different labels believe the prophecies of the bible are eschatologically fulfilled (the "end times" stuff are past events in other words). "WomenBeyond" is meant to be an inclusive name under which many points of view can be explored. It began as a website called "preteristwomen.com" - back when I mistakenly believed "preterists" were the only ones having the eschatological fulfilled view.

I also learned that there are a ka-billion different "preterists" out there: "full preterist", "sovereign grace preterist", "partial preterist", "apostolistic preterist", and on and on. Now the folks in those groups are dividing into even more sects. Truthfully, I don't have them all sorted myself.

"Preterit" means "past". "Preterit view" means "past view". I reckon that can be chopped into pieces if people so choose - and they do. I'm still trying to figure out how the past or preterit view, begat preter-ists. I may never know.

Lately, those who call themselves "preterists" have been calling folks like me "hyper-preterist" (I think it's better worded "consistent preterist"). They call me lots of things though, lol! It would be right I guess as for the way I view fulfillment and how they use the word preterist.

As you have already observed, there is an air surrounding "preterism" (as a culture) that is distinctly different than that you would find here. I'm not sure really the word for it - but it is recognizable I think.

Here's some straightforward stuff on the "transmillennial" view: http://www.presence.tv/cms/faqview.php#q6. If transmillennialism traces its roots to Max King's book, then they and I would differ there.

As well, I don't agree with all of the political and scientific stuff posted under "The Green Zone" at the Presence site. To be truthful though, those differences in my mind, are not differences. You and I may not agree on everything political and scientific either, but we can be together in the things that are really important, ya know?

Either way, you will find the air of grace within folks having the "Transmillennial" view imo. As well, you will with those who call themselves "Pantelists" who also acknowledge that fulfillment includes redemption.

The way I grew up, though "the Kingdom had come", the "white throne judgement" was ongoing. That's what I was taught, not what I read. I didn't read "Revelation" until I was well an adult. I don't think that I had the "fulfilled view of eschatology" then, even though I believed the Kingdom had come because I saw judgement among other things, as on-going. There are many preterists that would disagree with that statement because they see those things as on-going as well. In my personal opinion, it's not fulfilled, unless it is finished.

Anyhow, not sure that would help again. Maybe some others will have some thoughts on it.

Amie

[Paige]

The way I understand it, partial preterists believe that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled, but there are still a few more left (2nd coming, resurrection, lake of fire). Preterists believe it has all happened, but to what extent that affects our lives today seems to be where the disagreements occur. I'm with Amie in saying that our view is better termed 'consistent' rather than hyper. What I find in those who class themselves as the traditionalists is a denial that anything really changed at all from the end of the OC world, and the bringing in of the NC world. IOW, the darkness really didn't pass away because it is still here. The same with law, death, hell etc...

Just my 2 cents on the topic, anyway.

Paige

[davo]

And my 2cents worth :). Those of us who hold to the fulfilled view AND are inclusive in that view as well are now being labelled by those prets that take issue with us, as "hyper-prets" etc -- the funny thing is that THEY really loathe the term "hyper" and are trying real hard to duck-shove it our way because "traditionally" THAT term has been applied to THEM by "partial preterists" who prefer to see themselves purely as preterists. Mad hey :biglaugha:

I myself like the term "pantelist/ism" -- "fulfilled to the utermost" i.e., completely. And THIS has regards to both eschatology AND redemption. Of late I'm really finding that those who claim to be FULL pret are really way less so -- claiming ongoing "sin, law, death and the devil" -- go figure :confused:

[davo]

Also, the Fulfilled view, says "all are saved". There is no asking Jesus into your heart kind of thing anymore? Am I understanding this correct?

Hi Nancy,

This I would say is not the case. From a pantelist view ALL are redeemed, though ALL may not be saved. The difference is this. Being "saved" means "coming into the call of God for service" -- the result of asking Christ into your life. Tradition has said that "asking Jesus into your heart" means going to Heaven when you die. Trouble is, you will NOT find THAT anywhere in the Bible.

So being "redeemed" and "reconciled" means God IS at peace with us -- being "saved" on the other hand is the personal revelation, acknowledgment and acceptance of this wondrous reality, and consequently entering into grateful service to God because of His great mercy and grace.

[Amie]

I myself like the term "pantelist/ism"

Yep, that shoe fits me rather well also, as does the "transmillennial" view.. but mostly just "Amie" :)

[Lou]

Nancy my belief is along the lines of Davo but “titles” seem to lead to division. Someone has to define what one has to be a “preterist,” “Christian” or whatever then everyone is taking sides and saying the others are wrong or heretics.

Several years ago I was a member of a church in a small town. One Sunday the pastor said something so infuriating that many of us members left and started another church in the same denomination.
In the years that followed these two churches never interacted with each other or did any kind of function in the community together though we did with other churches of that denomination of surrounding communities. In fact we didn’t associate with the other church members at all, they were like an enemy to us.

A like name or title doesn’t promote God’s love, God’s love does and that transcends all titles and names.

I agree with Amie that I’m just myself.

Oh BTW what was said that was so terrible that it so sharply divided the brothers and sisters in that church, I would tell you but I forgot.

[backtothefuture]

Thanks all for you input.
When I first came to the preterist sights about 5 years ago, I was so freaked that I didn't go back for a long time. But It really got me rolling to where I am now.
What has confused me, is all the division even in those camps. I felt like it was as bad as what we had been through in the evangelical camps. So that really confused me then.
I like where I am now.
I liked what each and everyone said. Davo, your take on asking Jesus into your heart, was most insightful.
Amie and Lou and Paige, very helpful stuff. I am just me and I like that. I want everyone else to be just them and be able to like that also.
You guys are great!
Thanks,
Nancy:biggrinbounce:

[davo]

I am just me and I like that.

Yep Nancy, I think that's pretty much it too -- titles can be handy, but a real pain in the neck too. The truth is, if someone is going to have an issue with you for whatever reason, then having a tag just makes it more convenient for them -- mind you, we all tend to do it. :rolleyes:

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
Amie, I plan still on reading more from that link you sent. Very interesting.
I also, don't understand the Hyper part of things. That was something I didn't remember from a few years ago. Is it, Hyper like in a child, or Hyper like gung ho, or am I missing it completely.
Also, I forgot to ask, what is a Universalism??
Thanks,
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

They would mean "hyper" as in "over", "above", "extreme".

"Universalism" is the belief that there are many avenues to God. "Christian Universalism" is the belief that all will eventually find salvation and reconciliation with God, going to heaven sometime after death.

Differences = #1, we believe that "reconciliation/redemption" is a present reality. And #2 As Davo said:


Being "saved" means "coming into the call of God for service" -- the result of asking Christ into your life. Tradition has said that "asking Jesus into your heart" means going to Heaven when you die. Trouble is, you will NOT find THAT anywhere in the Bible."

So being "redeemed" and "reconciled" means God IS at peace with us -- being "saved" on the other hand is the personal revelation, acknowledgment and acceptance of this wondrous reality, and consequently entering into grateful service to God because of His great mercy and grace.

I would say that my view is similar to Christian Universalism in that we both view the scope of reconciliation/redemption as universal.

Amie

[Lou]

I think that there is a problem with the term “Univresalism.” It is perceived to mean that everyone, no matter what, at physical death jumps right onto streets of gold and into a mansion on a hill. That is not what I believe. To me it is as Davo said “God IS at peace with us” and when we understand that we can be at peace with God and our fellow man.

[backtothefuture]

What about the people who are not at peace with God? Is God at peace with them?
Or the people who don't even believe in God? I have often wondered, where they fit into the redemption picture.
Do you have to believe in God, in order for God to be at peace with you. I guess that is what I am asking:confused:
Thanks,
Nancy

[Paige]

What about the people who are not at peace with God? Is God at peace with them?

I think so (remember, I don't speak for God, I just understand what I do from scripture). I've known many a believer over the years (myself included) who, if they were really honest would recognize that in certain periods (short or even long) they were not at peace with God. I have to believe that God was able to extend grace to them despite their (my) inability to always be a reflection of peace. If God extends grace to those who know better, I can't believe there would be none for those who don't.


Do you have to believe in God, in order for God to be at peace with you. I guess that is what I am asking

The way I see it, our belief or lack of it doesn't change the reality of God and Who He is. It also doesn't change the fact that there are consequences that each of our choices bring. My experience has been that a close relationship with God helps me to make better choices (hopefully) and it also helps me when others' choices have a direct effect on me. (Mind you, this is but a small part of what relationship w/God is all about. )

Paige

[Lou]

I agree with Paige. One thing more I don’t believe that our relationship with God ends with the grave but even if I did I wouldn’t change how live or believe.