Print This Post
Here’s an excerpt from a recent post concerning postmillennialism. It does have some bearing on hyperpreterism and may interest you.
Print This Post
Roderick changes his face to suit whatever is expedient. Lookee at what he wrote on July 22, 2009. Yeah, that doesn’t really comport so well with his current spin.
Ooopsie. Ignore that mouthy women behind the curtain.
Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Theological Seminary has recently entered the battle against the heresy of hyperpreterism. As I understand it, he is preparing a major refutation of the heresy. All of us at PretBlog are eager & pleased to see Dr. Talbot engaging this issue. We are excited that sometime in September, both Dr. Talbot, Dr. Kenneth Gentry & a third guest will be hosted by Covenant Radio podcast for a “Roundtable Discussion on Hyperpreterism“.
On a personal level, I have had several email & long phone conversations with Dr. Talbot & have appreciated & enjoyed my interactions with him. He has sent many theological study materials to my home…free of charge to me. [SELL OUT!!!! - ddw insertion LOL]
Comments (10) Print This Post
Check out this insightful clip from Dr. James White on the Dividing Line Program, October 7, 2010. The context is a caller getting sucked in by hyperpreterist nonsense and the Young Literal Translation.
Comments (2)RINO’s have falsely accused Dr. Kenneth Talbot. One of the RINO’s whom I affectionately refer to as my “Fan” has reposted a fallacious attack issued by her mentor Mr. David Green. My “Fan” appears to be introducing concepts she really doesn’t understand. My “Fan” posted,
Comments (3) Print This Post
Comments (6)It’s scientifically safe to make plans for 2013. The world will not end on Dec. 21 or the default date of Dec. 23, according to a newly discovered Mayan calendar.
Print This Post
I recently read From Age to Age by Keith Mathison and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is a continuation of a series.
Comments (0)Page 413-415
Luke 17After addressing the Pharisees, Jesus gives a lengthy discourse to his disciples (17:22-37). The interpretation of this passage is made more difficult by questions related to the parallels among the Synoptic Gospels. In Matthew and Mark, there is only one extended eschatological discourse, the Olivet Discourse, and this is paralleled in Luke (Matt. 24-25; Mark 13; Luke 21). Luke, however, also includes an extended eschatological discourse here in chapter 17. The difficulty arises for several reasons. First, some of the themes found in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew and Mark are not found in Luke’s version of the Olivet Discourse (Luke 21) but in Luke 17 instead. Second, the sequence of the themes in Luke 17 differs from the sequence in Matthew and Mark’s Olivet Discourse. Third, some of the content of Luke 17 is unique to Luke. Finally, there is no overlap between any of the content of Luke 17 and Luke’s own Olivet Discourse in Luke 21.
I found this point that Sam made in response to David Green to be very edifying and worthy of being highlighted as a post. The meaning and scope of the resurrection is at the heart of our faith.
Comments (89)For “human” to be “human” it MUST involve the unity of the combination of substance and spirit (conception). Jesus, the MAN, was a unity of being in soul and substance. So was Adam. Body (clay) was breahed in and “became a living being” (human being). Now, Green wants to assert this point. All is fine and well. He can’t deny it. BUT, he also wants to assert that because this indivisibility remains, regardless of percieved “separation” (soul in heaven, body in grave), that one can be a “whole man” in heaven. He concedes this, too. Thus, at this point, he can say the “whole man” is “in heaven” with his body being in the grave. It is here that he falls apart on the basis of the fact that the WHOLE MAN is promised to be RAISED. This would, of logical necessity, require the eventual raising of the dead body. It was BECAUSE of the indivisibilty of substance and soul that Jesus was RAISED and now RESIDES in heaven, bodily. In other words, if the soul is regenerated, the body, of necessity, MUST be raised since the WHOLE MAN is involved in “resurrection of the dead”. Green has shot himself, again, in the foot.
It would not be “resurrection” if the “soul only” was raised. The soul being regenerate and departing to “be with the Lord” guarantees the “resurrection” of the body since soul and body are indissolvable in unity (constituting “human being”). The stamp of the body is on the soul (Person), and stamp of the soul is on our bodies (it’s Dave’s body, and nobody elses - uniquely his, DNA and all). This indivisibile union is known in the mind of God (since he “knitted it” together, and “fashioned” as such according to His own will and knowledge) and will be raised. “Regeneration” refers to the soul (the “inner man”). “Resurrection” refers to the body (the outer man of the same “one man” the “living being”). It is precisely here that Paul can apply “made alive” in Christ to the already, and yet refer it also to the future (resurrection of the body), because soul (regeneration) is directly related to “resurrection” of the body in one indissoluable union. If the soul is made alive, the body WILL be raised. If you just had a soul only regeneration, without a bodily resurrection, then the whole man would not be raised from the dead. It would be foolish to speak of the Spirit “also quickening your mortal bodies”! Why will the Spirit quicken our mortal body, as it quickened Jesus’? Because they are indivisible. If the soul is quickened, the body of the one quickened will also be raised because the WHOLE is involved as it was for Jesus, the MAN.
I have added the following to the indexes at the PreteristSite. For those blog readers who might be unawares, PreteristSite is the home of many indexes of resources for the study of orthodox preterism, refutation of hyperpreterism, and material in opposition of dispensationalism futurism. Please note that the two categories of materials in opposition should not be considered equal. Hyperpreterism is rank heresy. Dispensational futurism is something over which fellow believers can sharply disagree without dividing. PreteristSite is also home to my Matthew 24 commentary, It’s Not the End of the World!.
Disputing Premillenialism by Dee Dee Warren
Dr. Brown discusses preterism with Dr. DeMar
Matthew v. Thessalonians ~ an excerpt from an old conversation in which I detail why I don’t believe the the Olivet is talking about the same event as 1 Thessalonians 4 and the related Thessalonian passages
Notes from “Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” by David B. Currie
Comments (0) Print This Post
John Scargy of DeathisDefeated.com denies man as a result of the fall died both spiritually and physically. After posting up a link to Christian Philosopher and Apologist William Lane Craig’s opinion of the meaning of Romans 5:12 Mr. Scargy went on to explain…
… i reject the so called combo view your espousing. You CAN’T support (with scripture) a spiritual removal of the curse and a physical one separated by thousands of years. Jesus taught no such thing nor did any OT prophet or NT writer. It’s a scheme (hybridization hermeneutic)) futurist have tried to sneak in to support their failed futurist prophecies.
You really have to wonder about the reasoning skills of a guy who would claim overcoming of physical death wasn’t taught by Christ Jesus when Jesus explained,
Comments (59) Print This Post
Please check out this link about a potential theology conference to be held in Jacksonville Florida during which my debate with Alan Kurschner would be one of the available (out of many) events to attend along with a possible debate between a proponent of annihilationism (Chris Date of the Theopologetics Podcast) versus the traditional view of hell. Please go and take the survey if you are at all interested.
Comments (4) 
