Obviously, I missed something, but it has been my understanding that most Full Preterists come from the Postmill camp. Most Partial Preterists come from the Amill camp. I think the distinction is important for several reasons:
#1. Amills are NOT Replacementarians as Dispensationalists love to fling around. We belive in the Gentile ingrafting INTO Israel. It is hard to find racists when they believe they are joined to Jews.
#2. The clear gulf between Partial’s and Full’s is the testimony that the Lord is going to return to judge the earth. And, it seems to be a gulf that very few people cross to deny.
At least, this has been my observation. But, what do I really know. I’m not even a Full Partial Pretereist; just an over-overexurbant Amill.
I never keep Amils, postmils et al any straighter than their convoluted twistings of Scripture.
Interestingly, FWIW, Walvoord has this to say re Mat 24 . . .
p381
“The second and third questions concerning signs of His coming and the end of the age actually were the same question because the age ends at the time of His coming. Matthew gives us the most complete answer to these two questions (Matt 24:4-30)”
“Scholars interpret Matthew from several different points of view. Usually their interpretation of prophecy in general dictates the interpretation of this section. Amillenarians, who deny a literal millenial reign of Christ, tend to take these prophecies in more of a general than specific way and frequently attempt to find fulfillment in the first century. Accordingly they attempt to relate most of the prophecies to the time when Jerusalem was destoyed in A.D. 70.”
“Post millenarians have a different problem in that they want to support their view that the world is going to get better and better as the Gospel gradually triumphs; but this passage of Scripture does not support this and, in fact, predicts increasing evil with the climax at the Second Coming. . . . “
“Only the premillenial interpretation tends to interpret this prophecy as literal and specific. Even among premillenarians, however, variations can be observed. Some hold that this entire passage will be fulfilled in the future in connection with the Great Tribulation. Others believe that the break comes at verse 9 with the previous predictions being general in character and the particular prophecies, beginning with verse 9, being fulfilled in the Great Tribulation. Still another point of view which is presented in this writing is that the entire period described in verses 4-14 are general prophecies that can find fulfillment throughout the present age, with verses 15-30 fulfilled in the Great Tribulation. However, these same prophecies and the events predicted in verses 4-14 are repeated in the Great Tribulation when what was perhaps partially fulfilled earlier then have a very literal and devastating fulfillment. The cewntral question is whether the specific signs given in verses 15-26 are the future Great Tribulation. Under this interpretation the sign of the abomination will be the beginning of the last three-and-a-half years when the world ruler takes over and the Great Tribulation begins.”P 383
EVERY PROPHECY IN THE BIBLE
JOHN F WALVOORD
I don’t know, I just read the bible
If I understand full preterism, no millennial view makes any sense, because each millennial view posits a bodily second coming of Christ at the end at some point in the future. Full preterists deny the second coming, at least as it has been historically formulated in the creeds.
#1. Amills are NOT Replacementarians as Dispensationalists love to fling around. We belive in the Gentile ingrafting INTO Israel. It is hard to find racists when they believe they are joined to Jews.
As do us postmils.
#2. The clear gulf between Partial’s and Full’s is the testimony that the Lord is going to return to judge the earth. And, it seems to be a gulf that very few people cross to deny.
True.
At least, this has been my observation. But, what do I really know. I’m not even a Full Partial Pretereist; just an over-overexurbant Amill.
Sounds like an oxymoron. :-)