Editing Preterism (section)

==Influences within Christian thought==
{{Globalize|section|USA|2name=the United States||date=September 2023}}
Partial preterism is generally considered to be a historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church.<ref name="Garland 2007 114">{{Harvnb | Garland | 2007 | p = 114}}.</ref><ref name = "Anderberg 2008 174">{{cite book | last = Anderberg | first = Roy | author-link = Roy W Anderberg | title = The Return of Christ: A Biblical Study | year = 2008 | page = 174}}</ref><ref name = "Sproul 1998 156">{{Harvnb | Sproul | 1998 | p =156}}.</ref> Still, partial preterism is not the majority view among American [[Christian denominations|denominations]] founded after 1500 and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espouse [[dispensationalism]].<ref name="Garland 2007 114"/><ref name="Sproul 1998 156" /><ref>{{cite book | last =Riemer | first =Michael | author-link = Michael A Riemer | title = It Was At Hand | year = 2000 | page = 12}}</ref> Additionally, dispensationalists are concerned that partial preterism logically leads to an acceptance of full preterism, a concern which is denied by partial preterists.{{Sfn | Garland | 2007 | p = 117}}

Full preterism is sometimes viewed as heretical,<ref name="Garland 2007 114"/><ref name= "Anderberg 2008 174" /><ref name = "Sproul 1998 156"/> based upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), and also from biblical passages that condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection or transformation of the body — doctrines which most Christians believe to be essential to the faith. Critics of full preterism point to [[Paul the Apostle]]'s condemnation of the doctrine of [[Hymenaeus (Ephesian)|Hymenaeus]] and [[Philetus (Ephesian)|Philetus]],<ref>{{bibleverse|2|Tim|2:17-18}},</ref> which they regard as analogous to full preterism. Adherents of full preterism, however, dispute this assertion by pointing out that Paul's condemnation was written during a time in which (their idea of) the resurrection was still in the future (i.e., pre-AD 70). Their critics assert that if the Resurrection has not yet happened, then the condemnation would still apply.