Why Do You Generally Refuse to Use the Label “Partial Preterist”?
It is said, “He who controls the language wins the war.” This may not be ultimately true, for Christ will win despite our shortcomings, but there is great power in subtleties of semantics, and guess what? The heretics are winning. This is why I refuse to own or use with regularity the term “partial preterist” while letting those whose doctrines place them outside the faith abscond with the historical term of “preterist” or flatter themselves with “full preterist” (pity you poor half-full guys, you sound so darned empty and incomplete) or “consistent preterist” ( which makes their opponents wrong by definition). What I believe is what has historically been meant by the term “preterist,” and we should not give up this valid moniker without a fight and let the heretics control our language. Do Calvinists let the hyperCalvinists do this (and no I am NOT referring to hyperCalvinism as heresy)? Do we hear them being referred to as “partial Calvinists”? No. Preterism is a theological term wit
