Roderick Edwards Partial Preterist
If anyone would like a free copy let me know. You can find it on the link below:
ever created in the North East and it took over 30 years to accomplish it!
I started putting it up before my son Joshua Perry was born, and I could not have done it without him.
Redirectionalism: An Alternative to Full Preterism?
Roderick Edwards: “Every so often, a former Full Preterist will contact me to discuss where they landed after they left the movement. This is always difficult because I want to be mindful and tactful. After all, they left the heresy of "hyperpreterism".”
Donald Perry: There is big difference between Full Preterism and Hyper Preterism. They are not the same thing by any means. What kind of Preterism Roderick is talking about is vital if there is to be any kind of a worthwhile discussion on the subject. One view holds that they are no longer being sanctified while the other holds a view that they are still being sanctified. One view implies that Jesus is not coming again consistently, while the other inconsistently implies Jesus is coming again in their soteriology. The difference in these forms of Preterism is so strong that at this point anyone studying eschatology must conclude that Roderick has disqualified himself as any kind of scholarly critic because he does not know where he is going. The implications of his criticisms do not mean the same thing in relation to the two separate groups. Roderick has made himself incoherent.
Roderick: “… left the heresy of "hyperpreterism". …. leaving the heresy of hyperpreterism … [this is] specifically to hyperpreterism; to interpret things radically different …. too much like Full Preterism to make much of a difference.”
Donald Perry: Again, if Donald Perry is a Preterist and Roderick would like to examine him he should be able to first figure out if he is either dealing with a former Full Preterist, a former Hyper Preterist, someone leaving hyperpreterism, a Full Preterist or a Hyper Preterist. But since Roderick cannot make up his mind or figure out what these terms mean in relationship to the subject he is examining this disqualifies him and his paper from any kind of reasonable consideration.
Roderick: “…or Hyperpreterists like Preston, Stevens, and Noe … Of course Stevens and Noe are Hyperpreterists. … Perry seems to be so caught up on developing his own "ism" that he doesn't really know what is going on.”
Donald Perry: Stevens and Noe are not “Hyperpreterists”, and anyone who suggests such a thing has no business writing about Preterism.
Roderick: “I was using the term FPism [Full Preterism] and Hyperpreterism interchangeably.”
Donald Perry: The fact that Roderick thinks he should whimsically combine terms like these and use them interchangeably demonstrates precisely why he is not competent to provide critical analysis.
Roderick: “All the books against hyperpreterism mention these men specifically.”
Donald Perry: Just because someone is an idiot and falls into a ditch does not let one off the hook just because they have followed them. A true scholar does his own research and starts from scratch, he does not depend on others to provide the facts. But in this case we are talking about the foundation for his criticism, Roderick is without excuse.
Roderick E. “Perry's book has no discernable [discernible (sp)] table of contents”
Donald Perry: The table of contents is discernible and matches each of the following chapters, however there are no page numbers. But if Roderick is lost here, how will he not be is lost everywhere and in everything he sets out to do?
Roderick E: “It isn't until page 27 where I could follow some amount of structure in his Question/Answer format. Apparently, these are questions he has been asked throughout the years. But even here, there is no sequential order.”
Each question has appropriate answers and also stands alone as pertinent questions within the introduction. This is not meant to be an introduction to Preterism. I am assuming that the reader has a basic knowledge on the topics I am writing about. The problem as it appears to me is that Roderick wants to critique a topic he thinks he can be deliberately unfamiliar with, this is why he is completely lost.
This is a copy of some of the questions I am dealing with starting with the first one; they are created to form a foundation for the next chapter in my book:
1 Question: How do we answer those who say our view is impossible to understand?
2 Question: What is the Book of Revelation about?
3 Question: What does the word signified mean, and how might it relate to an idealism?
4 Question: How do you define Idealism?
5 Question: What is the view of this work regarding Preterism and Futurism?
6 Question: How does the hope of the New and Old Testament regarding the coming Messiah define the way Christians are to live?
7 Question: If eschatology is to be understood ideologically today is it possible to determine where we are on the prophecy timeline by looking at the firstfruits?
Roderick says “…there is no sequential order.”? The questions and answers are obviously set in a correct order of what is necessary to be answered for anyone who wants to explain where they are going with a commentary on anything else like this. If Roderick has the list of questions for a better order then he needs to provide it if he wants to gain some respect.
This is an outline of what my questions pertain to:
1. A basic explanation of my view.
2. A basic explanation of what I believe the subject I am studying is about.
3. Is my view found in the Bible, and if so where?
4. How I define the words I am using to define my view amongst others who use the same words.
5. Where does my work stand in relation to other interpretations?
6. What are the implications of this view as to how we live?
7. What are the implications of this view regarding past present and future generations.
I have made my point, no sense in beating a dead horse. Obviously these questions are in a very well structured and in a correct order. Roderick has wasted our time and made another false claim because he is very sloppy and chaotic in the subjects that he address. As we can see, he can no longer be trusted to provide true and competent answers.
Roderick: “From what I could gather, Perry is trying to say that even if some or all of the prophecies in the New Testament were originally for the audience of that time, we Christians in this time and times since AD 70 should redirect or apply much of that to ourselves. Perry says as much on pages 27-28; "We are not the firstfruits, but man has not changed and neither has God, therefore the same warnings now apply to us that applied to them in Revelation 1:3"”
Donald Perry: This is what all Christianity believes including Roderick himself, so what’s the problem? Roderick is silent about this and instead moves on to a personal phone conversation I had with him. What I say privately is not the same thing that I say publically. It is a shame that Roderick feels he needs to resort to these tactics of argumentation. It was a surprise for me to witness his attempt to answer my book publicly about his problems without any kind of in depth private conversations first or else see a thorough study on these positions. But to see him now try and recount my private phone conversations suddenly posted online was a real surprise. I was shocked!
Roderick: “Perry inferred that his Redirectionalism is a form Idealism. On page 28 he states the question; "How do you define Idealism?" and then begins his answer like this: "I would not define it in the way Christianity has defined it thus far." … Or specifically to hyperpreterism; to interpret things radically different than "Christianity has interpreted it thus far". Who do we think we are?”
Donald Perry: What I said was that I would not define *Idealism* as it has been defined thus far. In order to be a Christian you do not need to be an Idealist? And if Roderick wants to call me a hyper-preterist he first needs to be able to be able to define the term. The book Roderick is analyzing is not a hyper-preterist book.
Roderick: “Question: "Is it necessary to clearly understand Preterism in order to rightly understand Idealism?" Answer: "It is impossible to fully understand why we are right about Redirectionalism, and its Futurist arguments, unless one is able to understand the weight of Consistent Preterist arguments." This is important as it shows that Perry's Redirectionalism is in fact built on Full Preterism. As he says, it is impossible to fully understand his views unless one is able to understand [Full Preterism].”
Donald Perry: What I am trying to say and said is that to *fully* understand Redirectionalism you need to understand Consistant Preterism VS Futurism. My book is neither only about the future or only about the past, it is only about Redirectionalism.
To fully understand, I could say the same for futurism. Unless you have an education as to what are the strengths and weakness of every eschatological view you will not be able to determine fully where your own eschatological point of view stands.
If there are ideas within a particular ism, these ideas could be shown to be built on one another. Conclusions that are different cannot be built on one another, this is an impossibility. They stand alone as separate conclusions. Roderick has a chaotic view of how to interpret conclusions that does not work.
On the other hand Partial Preterism is in fact always gravitating toward Full Preterism. Preterism is like gravity, and what goes up must come down. No mechanism within Preterism can be provided to stop it. Partial Preterists and Full Preterists have never NEVER provided a coherent argument for the Consistent Preterist problem they complain about. Roderick says I am a Hyper-Preterist, do you see an argument here from his page or Sam Frost or anyone else that I should consider? No! You don’t because there is none. The only thing he offers is indirect arguments. This is the unsolvable problem that is unique to Roderick, the problem is within his own eschatology! But thankfully!!! I DO NOT have this problem because I am NOT a Preterist!!! I am a Redirectionalist …
Roderick: “Perry clearly states in several places that his Redirectionalism is offered in opposition to Preterism. However, on page 33, Perry references books by "partial-preterists" and Full Preterists as "similar works" as Redirectionalism and even tells us "they are very helpful in seeing the need for and in some cases explaining the doctrine."”
Donald Perry: This is what I wrote: “Bibliography and similar works. … Note that the views expressed above in these commentaries do not necessarily express Redirectional Idealism. However, they are very helpful in seeing a need for and in some cases explaining the doctrine.” I am not going to get into all the similarities and differences between Redirectionalism and Preterism. But to conclude that Redirectionalism is Preterism because I said “similar” is another demonstration of Roderick’s attempt to employ his spin the wheel exegeses. Roderick puts a lot of weight on the word similar. Men are very similar to women, but they are not the same.
He has a family and full time job and throughout his review he makes statements that show he is in a big hurry, Roderick is tripping over himself to get through the first few chapters. He received my book on November 16, 2013 and says “[Perry] tries to say I haven't read his book, when I most certainly did.” and then published his review on November 25, 2013. The book takes time to go through, some parts are complex. Last time I read it, it took me over 6 weeks full time to read and think about implications, and I am the author. Roderick would like to trying to pass himself off as trustworthy scholar. But it is completely impossible to read these kinds of books like this, he read only parts of it. It is a book about eschatology, in some cases what is proposed is just as complex as some of these math problems mathematicians like to spend all their time with. You have to stop and do some thinking and check out some commentaries, Greek words, a concordance, look up some Bible verses, make some phone calls and talk to some experts, and ask a lot of questions. If you are going read college level books on eschatology like checkout paperback romances there is something seriously wrong.
Roderick: “I fear what has happened to Perry is … It seems that … in fact maybe … It seemed like … Redirectionalism seems.”
Donald Perry: At this point I am getting a real sense that I have been wasting my time. Roderick needs to do his homework, read the material, and understand it before he sets out to critique something. Instead he has adopted this hit or miss tinker toy method of discerning Scripture.
Roderick: “On page 49, Perry makes it clear that he continues to hold the Full Preterist idea that the physical world will remain. "If we carefully read the Bible, we find that these verses about the Last Days are foremost speaking of the destruction of the old covenant world, foremost in that generation of Jesus Christ."”
Donald Perry: Whether the physical world continues into the future or not is really off topic. Perhaps I should have left that *speculation* out of my book. And it is a speculation, I wrote “foremost” , the world may literally end some day. But God is not angry at the earth, physical matter is not evil! Jesus did not come to destroy physical matter. Jesus was a man, much like you and me, although at the same time He was also God unlike you and me. Did Jesus come in the flesh?, I know He did. Roderick should consider the implications of his using John Lightfoot who says the end of the world has to do with AD 70.
Roderick: “So, while Perry clearly has Jesus coming again, so does Noe, who has Jesus coming multiple times in multiple ways, but with no real culmination to the plan of God.”
Donald Perry: I do not have the same view as Noe, we are worlds apart. John Noe wrote a book Shattering the Left Behind Delusion. Ideologically I believe you can still be left behind, just as the foolish virgins were left behind and that is just the tip of the iceberg. On the other hand Roderick would have to agree with Noe, he is a Partial Preterist, he believes Jesus came in AD 70 in a once and for all fashion in relation to “the imminent; soon/about to be/shortly/quickly/within their generation "coming" of Christ”.
Roderick: “My suggestion would be … move to be part of historical Christianity as believed and taught by the bulk of Christians throughout history. There is no need to come up with a new idea. Christ has not failed us. The apostles have not failed us. The Holy Spirit has not failed us. They all conveyed exactly what they wanted us to believe before, during and after AD70.”
Donald Perry: My suggestion would be that you learn how to read. When Roderick continues to use his faulty methods to compare me to full-preterists, hyper-preterists or for that matter Joseph Smith Jr. I find it impossible to take him seriously. He is wasting my time. That he thinks he can critique something without understanding fully or carefully reading it first is laughable.
But what has been taught by the bulk of Christians throughout history? There are four major eschatological views, Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, Idealism. And they have been by no means mutually exclusive and are often combined to form a more complete and coherent interpretation of prophetic passages. Most interpretations fit into one, or a combination of, these approaches. Note that this is Roderick’s answer for the Hyer Preterist problem, spin the wheel eschatology.
Roderick: “Perry has told me that he has revised this book several times, even deleting several chapters at a time. This should tell him something.”
Donald Perry: This tells me that Roderick cannot be trusted in private conversations to keep them private. What I was referring to was deleting repetition, not to changing my eschatological view, something I have not done since 2000 AD when I discovered Redirectionalism.
Roderick: “[M]y review was honest and forthright. … Lastly, Perry on his blog … “
Donald Perry: Roderick’s reviews are not concerned with being honest and forthright! Roderick writes on his blog “While comments are moderated, almost all comments are published unless simply rude.”. I posted a link to my blog link on Rodericks page. But rather then post my comment-link the moderator Roderick responded to it in his own blog without naming where his response was coming from, how convenient for him.
What this means is that Roderick’s reviews are really all about Roderick. When Roderick has to censer these kinds of responses this shows that his concern is not about making sure he is getting all the facts straight. There is a principle in the ten commandments that Roderick should consider “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Because Roderick is willing to censer authors without contacting them first to see if he has everything in the right context, or allow those that he reviews to defend themselves freely, Roderick sets himself up as a slanderer, not as an individual who is willing provide a true and accurate analysis. The way truth is discovered is, for example, you have two lawyers and they fight it out in court. Roderick has an incestuous method of finding the truth, no different than the Rapture Ready Board.
This is the Rapture Ready Board-Rules-and-Guidelines-for-Posting-on-RR:
This message board is conservative in line with the dispensational classical interpretation of scripture in that we uphold God's Word as the literal final authority on all matters. We want you to enjoy informative conversations together concerning Biblical prophecy, therefore we established rules and regulations maintaining integrity and protecting members in good standing from bad doctrine … We hold to a higher standard of quality than most other Christian boards for the sole purpose of lifting up TRUTH and the real Jesus Christ before the watching world. … No promotion of Mid, Post Tribulation, Prewrath, Partial Rapture, Preterism, or Replacement theology. Rapture Ready is a traditional Pre-Tribulation Rapture, Pre 7 Seals, Pre 70th week, and Pre-Millennial Dispensational of End Times Prophecy. We believe in a literal 7 year Tribulation period, after the instantaneous Rapture of all regenerated believers in unison, during which God finishes His discipline of Israel, protects Israel, and finalizes His judgments on the unbelieving world. Salvation will remain open to people trusting in Jesus for salvation up to the Second Coming. … Do not attack the Christian faith in the guise of "wanting to learn", for entertainment purposes of arguments and debates.
There is no need to argue when you are right.
But what eschatological view does Roderick hold to? The answer is in Roderick’s paper, The Simple, Direct Refutation of Hyperpreterism (Full Preterism). “Mt 10:23 and Mt 16:28 ... These verses appear very strong in proving the hyperpreterist conclusion don't they? However, it all changes when put into context with Dan 7:13 and Mt 26:64... As you can see, the imminent; soon/about to be/shortly/quickly/within their generation "coming" of Christ was NOT a RETURN or coming BACK to earth; it was a coming before the Father/the Ancient of Days/the Mighty One. Jesus was talking about how He would soon be vindicated and glorified as the Messiah God He claimed to be. It would soon become obvious to everyone. Even His disciples wouldn't have finished evangelizing Israel before Jesus' Messiahship would be vindicated.”
Roderick puts the Vindication of Christ on the Preterist chopping block. When we take up the cause of the Gospel and cause of Christ accomplished at the cross (Hebrews 10:11,12,20) to die to ourselves so that others will have life, God WILL vindicate His Son in our presence. This is not something that Partial Preterists like Roderick can do away with or cloud with other ideas. We cannot say “Jesus was talking about how He would soon be vindicated and glorified as the Messiah God He claimed to be. It would soon become obvious to everyone. Even His disciples wouldn't have finished evangelizing Israel before Jesus' Messiahship would be vindicated.” And thus we can Preteristically conclude that "At the end of this world, there will be no need to "Vindicate" Christ; the focus will be His resurrection and judging all who have ever lived.” The End Of All Things, by C. Jonathin Seraiah, Page 169-170. The whole Gospel is centered around the Lord Jesus Christ's vindication even with eternal and earthly judgments! (2 Thess. 1:3-12) We cannot weaken the judgments of God imposed on that generation who rejected the Son of God clearly outlined for their complete and damnable end, pictured for all time for the damnation of Hell (Hebrews 10:29-31, Rev. 22:17-18). In other words, we cannot say that Matt. 24 is fulfilled as that is to agree with Consistent Preterism concerning that chapter.
Roderick Edwards writes in What is the Abomination of Desolation?: “I stand with the community of saints in understanding the abomination of desolation, whatever it may have specifically been, as having been at the time that the "Holy Place" (the Temple and its evirons) was still standing. There is no such place today nor shall ever be …”.
John Lightfoot believed that all of Matthew 24 and for all practical purposes all of Revelation and the Last Days have been fulfilled in AD 70. Gentry on Lightfoot: “This led him to conclude that the "judiciary scene set up in Rev. 4 and 5, and those thrones Rev. 20:1" speak of "the throne of glory" and "is to be understood of the judgment of Christ to be brought upon the treacherous, rebellious, wicked, Jewish people.” Lightfoot believes 2 Peter and the end of the world refers to Jerusalem as well “2 Peter 3:13: 'We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth.' The heaven and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state" (vol. 3, p.453)” Samual Frost on Lightfoot: “However, Lightfoot was free to develop a Preterist system that recognized the Destruction of Jerusalem, yet also affirmed the last judgment. He [Lightfoot] did so under a more or less Idealist notion, yet he was also, I believe, constrained by the Scriptures (particularly I Thessalonians 4 and I Corinthians 15, which he interpreted as future events. … He seems to take the phrase “last days” as, not the whole of the Christian Era (my view), but as the final days of Jerusalem.”
Partial Preterists are not constrained by the Scriptures, (whatever Scriptures they use such as 1 Thess. 4, 1 Cor. 15, Acts 1), they are contradicting themselves, and they are making the Scriptures contradict each other. This is because the Second Advent defines itself as all having to do with the end of the old world pertaining directly to that generation of Jesus Christ.
Roderick demands that Lightfoot must be used to find the only Christian answer with Gill and the Geneva Bible Notes. “It is thus important that in all things you look at the overall Christian perspective; not just your own. How has Christianity in general interpreted the "this generation" verse? The Geneva Bible notes [link] …John Gill Commentary [link] … John Lightfoot Commentary [link] …"Hence it appears plain …Conclusion.” Concerning the use of them Roderick writes: “As a Christian, dear reader you are NOT a lone-ranger or a private interpreter. Jesus founded The Church -- which is the collective of all Christians that have ever been and ever will be. It is thus important that in all things you look at the overall Christian perspective; not just your own. How has Christianity in general interpreted … So, any alternate interpretation is not "Christian". (See Curing Confusion: Session #1).
According to Rodericks own definition if one is a Partial Preterist he is not far off from Hyperpreterism “As more and more of the so-called "Partial-Preterists" such as Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar give up ground to hyperpreterism …”, a quote from Where is the REAL Fight Against Hyperpreterism? Roderick calls Kenneth Gentry a “so called” Partial. Likewise the wall between Roderick’s eschatology and Hyperpretism is just as so-called when he says “As you can see, the imminent; soon/about to be/shortly/quickly/within their generation "coming" of Christ was … it was a coming”.
Roderick admits that the Bible talks about conclusions in AD 70, but then offers an answer that the Apostles were exaggerating, this is his best answer for hyper-preterists in Curing Confusion: Session #1. “But we must remember the way the biblical writers use hyperbole or exaggeration is no different than we use it today. We often use very inclusive words and phrase such as "all" and "whole" and "every" when we really mean a very limited and specific object.”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Exaggeration as: 1,2 to pile up, 3 to magnify beyond the limits of truth. Exaggerated 1. Heaped up 2. Magnified or inflated beyond the limits of fact, justice, propriety or truth, excessive. Roderick’s answer is specious, he is saying that the Apostles and Jesus were liars. Wrong Roderick! Jesus and the Apostles were not liars. The apostles and Jesus were talking about absolutes. The absolute separation forever of the righteous from the wicked. The absolute and final judgment of God. The absolute end of the physical and fleshly world. They were not exaggerating they were speaking idealistically about facts, about absolutes and AD 70 was a historical parable. You can only use exaggeration so far until it is obvious that you are talking about lying, you are talking about taking away and adding to the Word of God. Be very careful Roderick, you need to watch where you are going, and you have no safety rope.
Here I am focusing on the type of Partial Preterism and Postmillennialism as defined by Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, RC Sproul, C. Jonathin Seraiah, Keith Mathison. Nevertheless, Roderick cannot escape the same conclusions I have outlined below. He has the very same problems.
The Partial Preterist and Full Preterist infers that there is fulfillment after AD 70 with a second coming. They indirectly or directly imply that Jesus and His apostles were operating in the Old Testament age up until AD 70. That the Christian age started in AD 70. For example Gary DeMar in The Passing Away of Heaven and Earth writes: “ A similar phrase is used by the author of Hebrews: "But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Hebrews 9:26). Jesus was manifested, not at the beginning, but "at the consummation of the ages." The period between A.D. 30 and 70 is, as the apostle Peter describes it, "these last times" (1 Peter 1:20). As time drew near for Jerusalem's destruction, Peter could say that "the end of all things was at hand" (4:7).”
Preterist eschatology is very dangerous, and it can destroy a persons soteriology. When atonement is not accomplished by Christ until A.D. 70 this puts the burden on the Firstfruits to accomplished it rather than receive the application of it because of Rom 12:1, 2; 2 Tim 4:6; Phil 2:12, 17; Phil. 3:10; Gal 2:20; 2 Cor. 4:10; Col. 1:24; 1 Peter 4:13. Rather the Bible says all of what was done on earth after the cross was so that we would reflect that which was accomplished in Christ through our sanctification.
The cross is our focal point for the beginning of the NT age and atonement, the end is an end when we are in heaven, this had nothing to do with AD 70. Romans 5:11; Hebrews 1:3, 9:10, 10:11-14 shows Christ sat down after the cross not after AD 70. And if we are still marrying we are still in the first age and world that was passing away. We are not now in another dispensation after AD 70. (1 Corinthians 7:29-34.)
The *overriding theme* in the Bible shows a complete end to sanctification and sinless perfection at Christ’s coming. Christ's coming signals the completion of the church's perfection where the living meet the dead who followed Christ in a completed sanctification. (Heb. 9:28) This did not happen in any coherent way for the living in AD 70 in terms Partial Preterism leaves us with, or in any coherent way for those for our future that Partial Preterism leaves us with.
Partial Preterism says that only some of the New Testament is fulfilled in relation to the second coming, but that there is still Scripture that has yet to be fulfilled. The problem with this is that there is only one apocalypse and one second coming in the New Testament. And once you say that one thing is fulfilled then every other prophecy about the second coming follows like a chain of dominos for complete fulfillment. This is especially true when Partial Preterists like Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry say that there was an end of the age in AD 70. But now they will try to show that we are still living in the last days? The Christian age has no end. Only the Creeds and their Soteriology are holding them back. The Partial Preterist system does not work coherently.
I see no need to list all the verses that prove atonement was at the cross, these verses alone show Preterism to be clearly be in error. The Preterist arguments, and why they will not work are answered best by comparing them to Redirectionalim. This means reading Hebrews 4:1, Revelation 1-3 and the rest of the Bible like it was written to you and not jumping out of the apostolic 33-70 age as Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar have.
The Perfect Type:
As an example, in AD 66 everyone in Christ had left Jerusalem (Matt. 25:10, Rev. 18:4) and was understood to be of those who were perfected as the Bride. These were those who had made themselves ready by the sanctification available to believers in Christ (Rev. 19:7), the New Jerusalem was identified. The damned clung to that old world that still exists today, and were destroyed. Christianity was defined on that day by the Church. All these who were to be defined as the bride of Christ either died as martyrs or died a natural death, but all were understood to have ascended (1 Thess. 4:16-17) into the New Jerusalem coming down (Rev. 21:2).
Now in our generation we are faced with the same challenges, to walk unto perfection to meet the Bridegroom. It means that if we are in Christ we will be ready, not like a foolish servant. Luke 12:46 “The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.” Matthew 25:24 “Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:”. It means that the firstfruits of the church were of those who inherit the promise of eternal life, this was not the case of those in earthly Jerusalem. Christ’s coming [or your physical demise] may not be for a long time off in the future as Postmillennialists propose.
The passages of 1 Thess. 4:14-18 and 1 Cor. 15:50-51 refer to the firstfruits coming to the gates of the eternal state, inheriting the promises given to the seven churches in Revelation and at the same time having their candlestick remain. This must be something that was understood spiritually. 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4 cannot ever be fulfilled on this earth because Paul said "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." You have to die like Jesus did to inherit incorruption, He is the perfect type.
Inventing new reasons for the second coming:
Partial Preterists are not defining the second coming because they do not follow the apostolic model. This makes them unorthodox in that regard. Instead of focusing on the apostolic age they wish to reinvent it.
Acts 1:7-11 “And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” If Jesus was to come again literally in the same way He left, then Jesus accomplished nothing in the perfect plan He had for the world. The Jesus that these men of Galilee will see coming could be literal, I believe He met with them again in AD 66. However, this kind of coming and going was not the same thing as what the Holy Spirit was to accomplish by His coming to take us to perfection in Christ. Pentecost follows in the beginning of the next chapter after Acts 1:9-11. Jesus is the perfect type, and we shall only see Him in heaven in His glorified body. In the resurrection we will see Jesus again. 1 Cor. 11:26 says “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” We have not seen Jesus arrive yet from heaven, therefore we will still eat this bread, and drink this cup. Hebrews 9:28 says “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” When we see Him again it will not be in a corruptible body, 1 Cor. 15:53,54. Everyone will see Jesus this “second time” without delay when they are no more in the corruptible body spoken of in 1 Cor. 15. 2 Cor. 5:8 says “to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” Hebrews 9:27 says “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”
Kenneth Gentry has said that this word for “times or the seasons” in Acts 1:7 translated “epochs” in the NASB can refer to thousands of years. The word at best means only "proper time" or "proper season" (one could extend "proper" to be "appropriate", but not much more. Basically, "epoch(s)" is simply a bad and misleading translation.
The progress in Revelation is Spiritual. The emphasis in the Bible in not on the physical progress that is demanded by Postmillennialism, and the focus in on the firstfruits.