It is manifestly absurd to say "the human body is like a kernel of corn that dies and “is gone forever” so that a new plant can emerge." So, since the kernel of corn "is gone forever," from what does the new plant emerge? Nothing?
I’m a partial preterist. But I have to say I have yet to see any good answers to Gary’s questions. Im no theologian, so please forgive the ignorance of my questions.
The argument that Jesus resurrection is an example of ours seems wrong from the start.
There were resurrections before Jesus. The difference between Jesus and our resurrections is Jesus body “saw no decay”. Clearly we are not only seeing decay but in some cases such as fire we are all but annihilated. So if we are physically resurrected, it is very different from Jesus who saw no decay. So you have to wonder if that distinction ( he saw no decay) is for the very purpose of differentiating our resurrection from Jesus.
Here are more questions. Jesus still had his wounds. If I die because a shark took a chunk out of my leg do I come back with that chunk missing? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
If a child dies in abortion, does he come back as a fetus? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
If I die a shriveled old man do I come back a shriveled old man? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
But the question I most want to answered is why is this belief so bad? Let me explain.
I think Dispensationalism where they essentially deny the kingdom is here, is much worse to the course of Christian history. But they are accepted as brothers. What is the damage caused by FP?
In a very basic way - the major issue with FP vs PP is meat suits or not? So what? Creators choice! Why do I care if I spend eternity in my meat suit or not?
Imagine this. You die and go to heaven. You’re with Jesus and you say, “Jesus, this is awesome! But man! I can’t wait to get my meat suit back! Then hanging with you will really be off the hook.”
Again, I’m a partial preterist trying to better understand. But I have to say the arguments against FP I am seeing remind me of the Pharisees who couldn’t give up the idea of a physical kingdom and trying to put their creeds above the law. Or modern dispys so desperate to hang onto the rapture and the idea of an earthly kingdom.
Of all my questions- why is the belief we don’t get our meat suit back so much worse than denying the kingdom is here now? Not saying it’s not. Just saying I don’t get why it is. Is our hope in spending eternity with God or in getting our meat suit back?
RE the creeds, I understand the historical weight they have. But it’s no different than the historical weight of the oral law. Someone argued they are different because the creeds are just recapitulation of the Bible not man made law! Cool, that means you don’t need them to make your argument since they are recapitulation, those arguments are already in the Bible. So to use the creeds is nothing more than to sub-textually argue that tradition is equal to Gods word.
// I’m a partial preterist. But I have to say I have yet to see any good answers to Gary’s questions. //
Well, you obviously have not been paying very good attention. A great deal of Gary's questions have been answered, even before he asked them.
// The argument that Jesus resurrection is an example of ours seems wrong from the start. //
In the way you describe it, yes. But that's not what we mean. You’re confusing the difference between uniqueness and pattern. Christ’s body not decaying does not mean ours must avoid decay to be raised. Paul explicitly says the opposite. What you sow dies, decays, and disintegrates, yet God raises it in glory. The whole point of resurrection is that God overcomes decay, not that decay prevents Him from doing so.
Also, there were no resurrections like Jesus's before Jesus. Every person raised before Him died again. Those were temporary restorations, not resurrection in the sense Jesus experienced and what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 15.
// If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus! //
The point of saying our resurrection is like Christ’s is not that we keep every incidental feature of His post resurrection body. It is that our actual flesh will rise just as His did. Paul makes this explicit. He says in Philippians that Christ “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” Continuity of body, transformation of condition. That is the apostolic teaching. Furthermore, you’re treating Christ’s retained wounds as if they were accidental leftovers rather than intentional signs. His wounds remained for recognition and confirmation.
// But the question I most want to answered is why is this belief so bad? //
Read 1 Cor. 15. Paul explains very clearly why such a denial is so bad.
// In a very basic way - the major issue with FP vs PP is meat suits or not? So what? Creators choice! Why do I care if I spend eternity in my meat suit or not? //
If you think the difference between orthodoxy and full preterism is “meat suit or not,” you have already absorbed the full preterist framework. Scripture does not call the resurrection body a disposable suit. Paul calls it the redemption of our bodies and says creation itself is waiting for it. Saying “why do I care” about what Paul says is the climax of redemption is not humility. It is an admission that your categories have drifted far from his.
Further, why give us bodies at all if they are ultimately irrelevant. God created embodied humans and called that creation very good. You look at what God called very good and shrug. That is your problem, not His or mine. Scripture treats embodied existence as integral to human nature, not a temporary costume we outgrow. Your indifference to the very thing God designed as the normal mode of human life reveals how badly your framework has distorted your instincts.
And you clearly have not pondered the implications of saying that ALL THINGS are fulfilled. That doesn't just touch on resurrection. That touches on everything. Doctrine of God, doctrine of man, doctrine of salvation, doctrine of the church...and so on.
// Again, I’m a partial preterist trying to better understand. But I have to say the arguments against FP I am seeing remind me of the Pharisees who couldn’t give up the idea of a physical kingdom and trying to put their creeds above the law. Or modern dispys so desperate to hang onto the rapture and the idea of an earthly kingdom. //
Calling critics of full preterism “Pharisees clinging to a physical kingdom” only exposes how deeply you have absorbed full preterist categories. No one here is defending an earthly political kingdom. We are defending what Scripture plainly teaches: a future bodily resurrection, a visible return of Christ, and a public judgment. Those are not dispensational inventions or Pharisaical traditions. They are the core of the apostolic message. When you liken that to the oral law, you are not offering insight. You are revealing just how far your thinking has moved from historic Christianity.
// Cool, that means you don’t need them to make your argument since they are recapitulation, those arguments are already in the Bible. So to use the creeds is nothing more than to sub-textually argue that tradition is equal to Gods word. //
Yet notice how inconsistent your complaint actually is. You say that using creeds is sneaking tradition alongside Scripture, yet you are doing the exact same thing every time you open your mouth. You are not simply pasting verses. You are giving explanations, drawing distinctions, deciding what counts as important, and offering your own interpretive framework. That is tradition. That is theology. That is precisely the thing you condemn in others while practicing it yourself in every sentence.
If your standard were consistent, you would have no right to critique full preterism, partial preterism, futurism, dispensationalism, or anything else. You would simply paste Scripture and walk away. But you don’t. You interpret it. You assemble arguments. You categorize doctrines. You try to persuade. That means you are functioning exactly the way the church fathers did when they crafted creeds, only without the benefit of catholic consensus or two millennia of reflection. Your own method disproves your argument.
The moment you move from “the text says X” to “therefore X means Y, and Y matters more than Z,” you have stepped into the very realm of doctrinal formulation you claim is illegitimate. And the irony is that you are doing it in service of a theological novelty that the entire church rejected long before anyone heard the name Gary DeMar.
Steve, take a hike. You’re not going to camp out on my blog, ramble endlessly, and then tell me what I supposedly believe. I’m not here to babysit your projections or let you rewrite my positions to fit whatever narrative you’ve already committed to.
And please, spare me the lecture about my “tolerance levels” for dispensationalism. I haven’t even discussed dispensationalism with you. You have no clue what distinctions I make between classic, revised, and progressive forms, or how sharply I reject the worst expressions of it. Some dispensationalists hold views that are wildly unbiblical. Others hold views that frustrate me deeply. But here is the key difference you keep pretending not to see: even at their worst, many dispensationalists still affirm the core doctrines that define Christianity. Bodily resurrection. A future return of Christ. A final judgment. The renewal of creation. The objective hope set before the church.
Hyper-preterism denies every one of those doctrines.
In fact, hyper-preterism takes even the areas where I agree with dispensationalists and denies those too. Dispies and amils may argue about the interpretation of Israel or the millennium, but both still affirm the basics of the faith. Full preterism guts the basics. It destroys the very doctrines that dispensationalists and Reformed theologians both confess together. That is how far outside the bounds it is.
So your attempt to drag dispensationalism into this conversation is nothing more than a smokescreen. You’re trying to compare a flawed but orthodox system with a system that redefines Christianity out of existence.
But this line from you exposes everything:
“FPs believe everything you believe but they have a difference in timing and believe that like Jesus our resurrected body can go with us to heaven.”
No. Absolutely not. That is not just wrong. It is shockingly wrong. It proves you have not even begun to understand full preterism. You are commenting on a system you do not know, do not understand, and have not studied beyond the surface-level claims fed to new recruits.
Full preterism is not a timing disagreement. It is a complete theological overhaul:
• a redefinition of resurrection
• a redefinition of final judgment
• a redefinition of Christ’s return
• a redefinition of the intermediate state
• a redefinition of the new creation
• a redefinition of the church’s hope
• a redefinition of ecclesiology
• a redefinition of anthropology
• a redefinition of salvation including sanctification, glorification, and for some, justification
• and a redefinition of redemptive history itself
Heck, it even touches on theology proper. If Jesus rid himself of his humanity (per many hyper-prets like Don Preston), then what is subjecting itself to what in 1 Cor 15? Not even the doctrine of the Trinity can avoid the nonsense of hyper-preterism.
I was knee-deep in that garbage for seven years. I wasn’t dabbling. I wasn’t casually curious. I was one of the main spokesmen. I defended it publicly. Debated it. Wrote for it. Taught it. I know every argument, every dodge, every rhetorical trick, every pressure point, every sleight of hand full preterism uses. And I know exactly how the system collapses as soon as you push any of its premises to their logical conclusion.
So no, Steve, you cannot tell me that full preterism “believes everything I believe except for timing.” That is the sort of line full-preterist teachers feed to people when they’re trying to hook them before showing them the implications. It is not reality. It is bait. And the fact that you think it sounds reasonable only proves how deeply you are already being shaped by the system you keep insisting you’re “just exploring.”
You have not grappled with the fact that under full preterism, every Christian since AD 70 is denied the hope Paul says is essential to the gospel. You have not confronted the fact that if “all things were fulfilled” in AD 70, then the Christian hope is a museum exhibit, not a living expectation. You have not seen that the system turns every major eschatological promise into either an invisible event or a metaphor. You haven’t followed through the implications for the doctrine of the body, the doctrine of man, the doctrine of the church, or the doctrine of salvation.
In short, you have not dealt with the theology at all. You’ve only swallowed the marketing pitch.
Ask questions if you want. But do not barge in here and pretend you understand full preterism well enough to declare that it differs from orthodoxy only in timing. Not only is that false, it’s the kind of falsehood that reveals you don’t yet know what you’re talking about.
It is manifestly absurd to say "the human body is like a kernel of corn that dies and “is gone forever” so that a new plant can emerge." So, since the kernel of corn "is gone forever," from what does the new plant emerge? Nothing?
Makes absolutely no sense.
I’m a partial preterist. But I have to say I have yet to see any good answers to Gary’s questions. Im no theologian, so please forgive the ignorance of my questions.
The argument that Jesus resurrection is an example of ours seems wrong from the start.
There were resurrections before Jesus. The difference between Jesus and our resurrections is Jesus body “saw no decay”. Clearly we are not only seeing decay but in some cases such as fire we are all but annihilated. So if we are physically resurrected, it is very different from Jesus who saw no decay. So you have to wonder if that distinction ( he saw no decay) is for the very purpose of differentiating our resurrection from Jesus.
Here are more questions. Jesus still had his wounds. If I die because a shark took a chunk out of my leg do I come back with that chunk missing? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
If a child dies in abortion, does he come back as a fetus? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
If I die a shriveled old man do I come back a shriveled old man? If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus!
But the question I most want to answered is why is this belief so bad? Let me explain.
I think Dispensationalism where they essentially deny the kingdom is here, is much worse to the course of Christian history. But they are accepted as brothers. What is the damage caused by FP?
In a very basic way - the major issue with FP vs PP is meat suits or not? So what? Creators choice! Why do I care if I spend eternity in my meat suit or not?
Imagine this. You die and go to heaven. You’re with Jesus and you say, “Jesus, this is awesome! But man! I can’t wait to get my meat suit back! Then hanging with you will really be off the hook.”
Again, I’m a partial preterist trying to better understand. But I have to say the arguments against FP I am seeing remind me of the Pharisees who couldn’t give up the idea of a physical kingdom and trying to put their creeds above the law. Or modern dispys so desperate to hang onto the rapture and the idea of an earthly kingdom.
Of all my questions- why is the belief we don’t get our meat suit back so much worse than denying the kingdom is here now? Not saying it’s not. Just saying I don’t get why it is. Is our hope in spending eternity with God or in getting our meat suit back?
RE the creeds, I understand the historical weight they have. But it’s no different than the historical weight of the oral law. Someone argued they are different because the creeds are just recapitulation of the Bible not man made law! Cool, that means you don’t need them to make your argument since they are recapitulation, those arguments are already in the Bible. So to use the creeds is nothing more than to sub-textually argue that tradition is equal to Gods word.
// I’m a partial preterist. But I have to say I have yet to see any good answers to Gary’s questions. //
Well, you obviously have not been paying very good attention. A great deal of Gary's questions have been answered, even before he asked them.
// The argument that Jesus resurrection is an example of ours seems wrong from the start. //
In the way you describe it, yes. But that's not what we mean. You’re confusing the difference between uniqueness and pattern. Christ’s body not decaying does not mean ours must avoid decay to be raised. Paul explicitly says the opposite. What you sow dies, decays, and disintegrates, yet God raises it in glory. The whole point of resurrection is that God overcomes decay, not that decay prevents Him from doing so.
Also, there were no resurrections like Jesus's before Jesus. Every person raised before Him died again. Those were temporary restorations, not resurrection in the sense Jesus experienced and what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 15.
// If not then our resurrection is not like Jesus! //
The point of saying our resurrection is like Christ’s is not that we keep every incidental feature of His post resurrection body. It is that our actual flesh will rise just as His did. Paul makes this explicit. He says in Philippians that Christ “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” Continuity of body, transformation of condition. That is the apostolic teaching. Furthermore, you’re treating Christ’s retained wounds as if they were accidental leftovers rather than intentional signs. His wounds remained for recognition and confirmation.
// But the question I most want to answered is why is this belief so bad? //
Read 1 Cor. 15. Paul explains very clearly why such a denial is so bad.
// In a very basic way - the major issue with FP vs PP is meat suits or not? So what? Creators choice! Why do I care if I spend eternity in my meat suit or not? //
If you think the difference between orthodoxy and full preterism is “meat suit or not,” you have already absorbed the full preterist framework. Scripture does not call the resurrection body a disposable suit. Paul calls it the redemption of our bodies and says creation itself is waiting for it. Saying “why do I care” about what Paul says is the climax of redemption is not humility. It is an admission that your categories have drifted far from his.
Further, why give us bodies at all if they are ultimately irrelevant. God created embodied humans and called that creation very good. You look at what God called very good and shrug. That is your problem, not His or mine. Scripture treats embodied existence as integral to human nature, not a temporary costume we outgrow. Your indifference to the very thing God designed as the normal mode of human life reveals how badly your framework has distorted your instincts.
And you clearly have not pondered the implications of saying that ALL THINGS are fulfilled. That doesn't just touch on resurrection. That touches on everything. Doctrine of God, doctrine of man, doctrine of salvation, doctrine of the church...and so on.
// Again, I’m a partial preterist trying to better understand. But I have to say the arguments against FP I am seeing remind me of the Pharisees who couldn’t give up the idea of a physical kingdom and trying to put their creeds above the law. Or modern dispys so desperate to hang onto the rapture and the idea of an earthly kingdom. //
Calling critics of full preterism “Pharisees clinging to a physical kingdom” only exposes how deeply you have absorbed full preterist categories. No one here is defending an earthly political kingdom. We are defending what Scripture plainly teaches: a future bodily resurrection, a visible return of Christ, and a public judgment. Those are not dispensational inventions or Pharisaical traditions. They are the core of the apostolic message. When you liken that to the oral law, you are not offering insight. You are revealing just how far your thinking has moved from historic Christianity.
// Cool, that means you don’t need them to make your argument since they are recapitulation, those arguments are already in the Bible. So to use the creeds is nothing more than to sub-textually argue that tradition is equal to Gods word. //
Yet notice how inconsistent your complaint actually is. You say that using creeds is sneaking tradition alongside Scripture, yet you are doing the exact same thing every time you open your mouth. You are not simply pasting verses. You are giving explanations, drawing distinctions, deciding what counts as important, and offering your own interpretive framework. That is tradition. That is theology. That is precisely the thing you condemn in others while practicing it yourself in every sentence.
If your standard were consistent, you would have no right to critique full preterism, partial preterism, futurism, dispensationalism, or anything else. You would simply paste Scripture and walk away. But you don’t. You interpret it. You assemble arguments. You categorize doctrines. You try to persuade. That means you are functioning exactly the way the church fathers did when they crafted creeds, only without the benefit of catholic consensus or two millennia of reflection. Your own method disproves your argument.
The moment you move from “the text says X” to “therefore X means Y, and Y matters more than Z,” you have stepped into the very realm of doctrinal formulation you claim is illegitimate. And the irony is that you are doing it in service of a theological novelty that the entire church rejected long before anyone heard the name Gary DeMar.
Steve, take a hike. You’re not going to camp out on my blog, ramble endlessly, and then tell me what I supposedly believe. I’m not here to babysit your projections or let you rewrite my positions to fit whatever narrative you’ve already committed to.
And please, spare me the lecture about my “tolerance levels” for dispensationalism. I haven’t even discussed dispensationalism with you. You have no clue what distinctions I make between classic, revised, and progressive forms, or how sharply I reject the worst expressions of it. Some dispensationalists hold views that are wildly unbiblical. Others hold views that frustrate me deeply. But here is the key difference you keep pretending not to see: even at their worst, many dispensationalists still affirm the core doctrines that define Christianity. Bodily resurrection. A future return of Christ. A final judgment. The renewal of creation. The objective hope set before the church.
Hyper-preterism denies every one of those doctrines.
In fact, hyper-preterism takes even the areas where I agree with dispensationalists and denies those too. Dispies and amils may argue about the interpretation of Israel or the millennium, but both still affirm the basics of the faith. Full preterism guts the basics. It destroys the very doctrines that dispensationalists and Reformed theologians both confess together. That is how far outside the bounds it is.
So your attempt to drag dispensationalism into this conversation is nothing more than a smokescreen. You’re trying to compare a flawed but orthodox system with a system that redefines Christianity out of existence.
But this line from you exposes everything:
“FPs believe everything you believe but they have a difference in timing and believe that like Jesus our resurrected body can go with us to heaven.”
No. Absolutely not. That is not just wrong. It is shockingly wrong. It proves you have not even begun to understand full preterism. You are commenting on a system you do not know, do not understand, and have not studied beyond the surface-level claims fed to new recruits.
Full preterism is not a timing disagreement. It is a complete theological overhaul:
• a redefinition of resurrection
• a redefinition of final judgment
• a redefinition of Christ’s return
• a redefinition of the intermediate state
• a redefinition of the new creation
• a redefinition of the church’s hope
• a redefinition of ecclesiology
• a redefinition of anthropology
• a redefinition of salvation including sanctification, glorification, and for some, justification
• and a redefinition of redemptive history itself
Heck, it even touches on theology proper. If Jesus rid himself of his humanity (per many hyper-prets like Don Preston), then what is subjecting itself to what in 1 Cor 15? Not even the doctrine of the Trinity can avoid the nonsense of hyper-preterism.
I was knee-deep in that garbage for seven years. I wasn’t dabbling. I wasn’t casually curious. I was one of the main spokesmen. I defended it publicly. Debated it. Wrote for it. Taught it. I know every argument, every dodge, every rhetorical trick, every pressure point, every sleight of hand full preterism uses. And I know exactly how the system collapses as soon as you push any of its premises to their logical conclusion.
So no, Steve, you cannot tell me that full preterism “believes everything I believe except for timing.” That is the sort of line full-preterist teachers feed to people when they’re trying to hook them before showing them the implications. It is not reality. It is bait. And the fact that you think it sounds reasonable only proves how deeply you are already being shaped by the system you keep insisting you’re “just exploring.”
You have not grappled with the fact that under full preterism, every Christian since AD 70 is denied the hope Paul says is essential to the gospel. You have not confronted the fact that if “all things were fulfilled” in AD 70, then the Christian hope is a museum exhibit, not a living expectation. You have not seen that the system turns every major eschatological promise into either an invisible event or a metaphor. You haven’t followed through the implications for the doctrine of the body, the doctrine of man, the doctrine of the church, or the doctrine of salvation.
In short, you have not dealt with the theology at all. You’ve only swallowed the marketing pitch.
Ask questions if you want. But do not barge in here and pretend you understand full preterism well enough to declare that it differs from orthodoxy only in timing. Not only is that false, it’s the kind of falsehood that reveals you don’t yet know what you’re talking about.
Get your bearings before you lecture anyone else.