R.C. Sproul admitting he was a partial preterist.

Some say he admitted later to being a Full-Preterist. When asked why he didn't admit it openly, he stated, "I have a hundred families depending on me to feed them."

Most partial preterist are too afraid of men to be consistent. Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson would fall into that category.

[drpaulv]

Actually, his answer was clear and showed wisdom and humility. I 100% agree with his view.

[stose]

Partial Preterism teaches that many of the biblical prophecies, especially those in Matthew 24, Daniel 9, and Revelation, were fulfilled in the first century, particularly with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, it maintains that certain prophecies, such as the bodily return of Christ (Acts 1:11) and the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:52), are yet to be fulfilled. This view rejects the idea of a future seven-year tribulation, a one-world Antichrist, and a rebuilt Third Temple, showing instead that these ideas stem from a misunderstanding of biblical prophecy.

Premillennial dispensationalism asserts a future seven-year tribulation based on Daniel 9:24-27, but this view is rooted in a misreading of the text. The prophecy in Daniel speaks of 70 weeks (490 years), with the 70th week already being fulfilled through Christ’s ministry and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is no biblical basis for a 2, 000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week, and no need for a future seven-year tribulation. Jesus Himself spoke of a Great Tribulation (Matthew 24:21) that would occur before that generation passed away (Matthew 24:34). This tribulation was localized to Jerusalem and its destruction in 70 AD, as recorded by the historian Josephus, who described the catastrophic events that befell Jerusalem. If the tribulation were a global event, Jesus' specific warning to flee would not have made sense.

The idea of a future Antichrist also doesn’t align with Scripture. In 1 John 2:18, John writes that many antichrists had already come in his time. The term "Antichrist" is never used in Revelation or Daniel, and it does not refer to a single, future world leader. Instead, an antichrist is simply anyone who denies Christ—as stated in 1 John 2:22. Revelation, often thought to be about a future apocalypse, was actually written about first-century events that were “shortly to take place” (Revelation 1:1), and the Beast in Revelation 13 is best understood as Nero Caesar or the Roman Empire, both of whom persecuted Christians in the first century.

Many proponents of premillennial dispensationalism claim that a Third Temple must be rebuilt for prophecies to be fulfilled, but this idea is unbiblical. In John 2:19-21, Jesus declared that He is the true temple, and in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, believers are described as the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Old Covenant, with its temple system, was fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 8:13). The New Testament does not anticipate a physical third temple, but rather emphasizes that the church is now God’s temple. The destruction of the temple in 70 AD marked the end of the Old Covenant, and no future temple is needed to fulfill God’s purposes.

Instead of living in fear of a future seven-year tribulation and one-world Antichrist, Partial Preterism encourages us to live confidently in the knowledge that Christ has already triumphed and is reigning now (1 Corinthians 15:25). His Kingdom is growing (Matthew 13:31-33), and history is moving toward the fulfillment of Psalm 110:1, where all of Christ’s enemies will be placed under His feet. The fear-based preaching that imagines a coming tribulation and Antichrist is rooted in a misreading of Scripture and distracts from the truth of what God has already done in Christ.

Dispensationalism thrives on fear, but the gospel brings peace. Jesus already won the victory! Stop worrying about a future tribulation—the work is finished, and Christ’s reign is now. We are to advance His Kingdom and share the hope of the gospel, knowing that Christ’s return will be victorious, not something to fear.

[PeaceIsJesusChrist]

1:56–2:36 🙌🏻 I love how RC says he doesn’t know! A teacher who can say, “I don’t know for sure, ” is a teacher I can trust, because _nobody_ knows but God, and way too many teachers today, the majority in fact, claim to _know_ what will happen.

[RomanZeNine]

None of the prophecies in the New Testament even make sense until you are at least in the partial preterist camp. I remember finding the prophecies to be troublesome until I got out of the premil dispy camp

[SeeTheManipulation]

@2:00 to 2:35 This statement is the most important one he made in regards to what he believes, keep in mind that its his belief, in regards to interpreting part of Revelation. The foundation, the core, of salvation he is crystal clear on, which is the most important. What happens after salvation will happen according to God's will. We can speculate but it is important like Sproul just did, to be humble and admit that you don't know exactly what God meant to say. So many people are being led astray today by believing in false teachings. You have to have a firm grasp on scripture to not be led astray. Because Satan and his minions are salivating waiting for the opportunity to strike, place doubt, separate, and capture the unsuspecting, unprepared minds.

[austinrothjr]

Your comments in the description are slanderous. He never even openly considered full-preterism. His book, “Last Days According to Jesus”, supports either the amillennial or postmillennial (partial preterist) view and is clearly arguing against a premillennial view. He said, regarding amil vs premil vs postmil that he didn’t know which one it was but he knows which one it isn’t (premil). He would be denying the Nicine Creed to be a full preterist and he never came close. I believe I’ve even heard him call full preterism a heresy but can’t remember where. You should edit that without more specific evidence.

[mactek]

The prophet Daniel was crystal clear. "... and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished." The first sentence of Revelation was crystal clear. "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place."

People see what they want to see and ignore what they want to ignore.

[BrazosEyrie]

it's frustrating that your words "some say he admitted later to being a full-preterist" are hearsay. Why must you think it's OK to spread rumors?

[Jilly]

This is a really great explanation of what I've observed from my friends and brothers who partake in this theology. Partial preterists often try to make eschatology seem like something that is unnecessarily dogmatic, too controversial, and seemingly unknowable this side of heaven. He put very clear words around what most in his camp would not. When you recognize that eschatology is very precise, the illusions are almost all explained somewhere else in scripture, the hermeneutic is very consistent, and how God doesn't write flippantly the way men do, it all becomes very obvious. One of the main barriers to this recognition are the presuppositions and the misunderstandings of what a futurist position actually believes. I've found that persons beliving in partial-pret, covenant theology, replacement theology, etc etc are usually incapable (due to attention/effort) of steel-manning the other hermeneutic. They close the door the moment they smell the air of something that seems to hurt an important doctrine and upon further investigation, a contradiction wouldn't be found.

[docbrown]

Ya. I am vehemently dogmatic that people who are vehemently dogmatic about many eschatological positions are either ignorant or pridefully ignorant -either way, unqualified to teach.

[roywhite]

Sprout really avoided controversy most of his life and probably was for him, a good idea. His book, End Times According to Jesus, shows his being a partial preterist. The left behind pre trib rapture is nonsense. The tribulation was surrounding seventy a d and severed to stop the sacrifices, destroy the temple, and punish covenant breaking Israel. Jewish Christians escaped and much of Israel was destroyed or scattered. Even now, the bulk of Israel is secular. According to Paul in Romans 11, the Lord is going to save Israel someday. The problem with being a preterist is not preterism. It’s the wrong teachings that project Daniel and Matthew 24 and revelation 2000 years into the future. It’s modern teachings that are wrong.

[adamperez]

Being a partial preterist means being part of the way to the truth. It’s a start.

[Gablesman]

Practically all Christians (and Jews for that matter) are partial preterists. Full blown preterists are hard to find. And similarly practically nobody is a nonpreterist.

[GregCleland-ph]

Is. 66:1 Thus says the LORD:
b“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?

Matt. 5.17-18 Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!

If the New Covenant, body of believers, is not the New Heaven & New Earth - The New Jerusalem than we’re still under the “Law of Moses, as a covenant& terms “for our righteousness.”

As 21st century New Covenant believers, there remains only one covenant & terms, “for righteousness.”

[heartsandmindsathome]

I’ve heard the same :) It’s my understanding David Curtis is the one who shared about Sproul becoming FP (but he kept his mouth shut for the sake of those who were employed through his ministry.) I have a friend who spoke with David Curtis at a conference recently because she wanted to confirm that Sproul did, in fact, tell him that.

[anthonym.]

At least RC was revealed the error of this belief when he went home to be with the Lord.

[Jilly]

EXPLAIN THIS PASSAGE FROM ROMANS 11!

a. who are the "enemies" for "your sake"??? but still beloved for the sake of their forefathers???
b. which gifts and calling are irrevocable?
c. does 31 not explain that they'll get the same kind of grace that the gentiles did?
d. when does the partial hardening come off of Israel?



Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

[DanzigDevilock]

Im glad I am not the only one….all different views of eschatology have their merits but all in all in the end I dont know…at least Partial Preterism can be proven with factual history

[royalpriest]

Too bad he wasnt a full preterist! Which I've heard behind closed doors, he possibly affirmed!

[moloney_overall]

OFCOURSE he believes in Partial Preterist Because he is a theologian who understand Covenant Theology!