Re: my statememt, So called “partial” preterist is about as credible as being partial pregnant.
To elaborate, the so called “full” preterists see the inconsistency of the “partials,” they correctly realize you can’t divorce the second coming of Matt. 24:29-31 from the tribulation that precede it. They correctly understand that Christ comes “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” You can’t claim the tribulation of those verses for AD 67-70, and not the coming which comes immediately after it. The “full” preterists, therefore have the coming of Christ having taken place in 70 AD also. At least they are honest and consistent.
The “fulls” claim “this generation” to be the generation that saw ALL of the Olivet discourse, including the second coming, fulfilled in 70 AD. The “partials,” running from the reproach of having Christ already come, try to distance themselves from it by conjuring up a second coming at the end of the millennial. Of which the Bible has no such thing.
I actually have more respect for the “fulls” than the partial pregnant types like Sproul and topcat. Like I said, at least they are consistent.
This from a so-called futurist premil who can find any statements of futurist premillennialism among the early church fathers in spite of his claims.
I actually have more respect for the “fulls” than the partial pregnant types like Sproul and topcat. Like I said, at least they are consistent.
I'd be more concerned about your false claims regarding the ECF.