The Various Views within Preterism

None of the major views of eschatology have a unified position with which all adherents agree. For example, within dispensationalism there are pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation rapture views. The same is true of preterism - there are many differing views when it comes to the details. The following definitions are provided to help readers understand where particular books, individuals, etc., fall among the differing views. We do not mean to "label" anyone, nor are any of these terms meant to be pejorative in nature. Others may use terms different from what you read here, and we are not claiming any qualification or authority to impose these terms on anyone. Rather, we provide these only as an aid for the reader. We have made the terms as generic as possible to minimize the number of categories.

Full Preterism

There are two major divisions within preterism, often categorized as “full” and “partial” preterism. Full preterists believe that what are often termed the "big three" eschatological events (The Second Coming, The Judgment, and The Resurrection) have been fulfilled in the past. This view is based on the numerous New Testament timing statements that place these events within the lifetime of the New Testament generation. Full preterists will often refer to themselves as simply preterists, and to their view as preterism, rather than using the term "full preterist." Although many terms have been applied to both major preterist views, we prefer the terms full preterism and partial preterism.

Although full preterists believe that The Second Coming, The Judgment, and The Resurrection are past events, we are quick to point out that a past fulfillment does not preclude ongoing ramifications. For example, when it comes to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, all Christians would hold a “full preterist” view of those events because they have already occurred, and thus any prophecies regarding those events are fulfilled. Yet no Christian would deny the ongoing ramifications of salvation obtained by those events.

While there are some full preterists who believe (typically called the “Israel Only” view) that there are no ongoing ramifications of the big three events, FCG does not endorse that position. For more detail, see Reader Beware.

Partial Preterism

As stated above, partial preterism is the other major view within preterism. Partial preterists believe that much of the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation were fulfilled during the New Testament generation in the events culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, the New Testament timing statements were fulfilled with a "coming" of Christ in judgment against apostate Judaism in the first century. However, partial preterists do not believe that Christ's judgment coming in AD 70 was the prophesied Second Coming. Nor do they believe that The Judgment and Resurrection have taken place. Like full preterists, they will often refer to themselves simply as preterists.

Modified Preterism

This is a term we use as a catchall for those who fall somewhere between full and partial preterism. There are some preterists who believe that Christ's AD 70 coming was indeed the prophesied Second Coming. This would place them in the full preterist camp. However, they may believe that some aspect of The Judgment, The Resurrection, or The Millennium are yet to be fulfilled, which some full preterists would argue excludes them from full preterism. On the other hand, because they are not looking for a future Second Coming, they don't really fit in the partial preterist category. So, we are simply calling these views modified preterism.

Honorable Intentions

As stated earlier, it is not our intent to label or pigeon-hole any person or view. Rather, we are simply trying to help others understand from which viewpoint particular individuals, books, etc. may be coming. If you are interested in reading a partial preterist view, it would be disappointing to get dozens of pages into a book only to discover it is written from a full preterist view. Many believers are tired of labels, which they see as only promoting division. We empathize with that view, and we are certainly not trying to divide anyone. Others refuse to acknowledge any label, preferring to simply be called "Christians." Again, an honorable sentiment. But how do we distinguish these "Christians" from Joseph Smith or David Koresh, who also considered themselves Christians? Because of the variety of material presented on this website, we felt the need to have at least a basic labeling system.