The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

I am once again attempting to listen straight through Dr. Bahnsen’s audio series on Revelation. I tried this before but my life got very busy, and I didn’t get very far. So I am starting again, and will post the nuggets here.

Dr. Bahsen warned against “flattening” our theology when we compare Scripture to Scripture and to remember that it is not always true that similar phrases mean the same thing. They can…. but they always sometimes don’t. This is of course part of the interpretative error of the hyperpreterists who shoehorn everything into an AD70 mold, which error is sometimes ignorantly propogated by my orthodox preterist brethren.

Specifically Dr. Bahnsen pointed this out:

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit….

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day….

“In the Spirit” in these two passages are not the same thing, but they are related.

In a related issue, J.A. Schep noted in his work The Nature of Resurrection Body:

As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word “sarx,” the term “body of Christ”? isused with different conclusions. It can denote Christ’s personal, literal body, in which he dies, rose from the dead, went to heaven, and will come again; the Church; and the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Though the three are related, they are not identical.

Gentry makes the same point:

Beyond the introduction of this matter relative to the philosophy of language, it is important to realize that A.D. 70 is not unrelated to the Second Advent. As the ending of the era of sacrificial rituals and Israel-exalting redemptive history, A.D. 70 is a pre-consummational type of the Second Advent’s history ending, consummational conclusion. Hence, the similarity of language and the mixing of ideas is justified on the basis of the relationship of type (A.D. 70) to antitype (Second Advent) [This phenomenon of type/anti-type is very common in Davidic/Messianic passages. In such references, what is said of the historical King David often applies to the Messianic King Jesus.]

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Originally posted March 26, 2005

As previously mentioned, I am reading Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant. Click here for the introductory post.

Page 257-258

Olam is undoubtedly more often used for a limited time than for eternity. We have seen indeed that that Old Testament in general gives us only the shadows of what are eternal things. And the shadows are necessarily transient and to pass away. Yet to these the term is constantly applied. The covenant with Noah is a covenant of olam; and not less so the Mosaic statutes and ordinances, although these plainly were to pass way. So also even the “men of old” are “men of olam”; “the ancient landmark” is the “landmark of olam”; Israel’s yoke had been “broken from olam,” and so repeatedly. Now, in none of these cases do we find a parallel to the limitations which the nature of things in all languages imposes on the term “forever,” and which yet leave it its full significance elsewhere. An ancient landmark is not a landmark which had been there as long as in the nature of things it could; and so as to the rest. And such examples are numerous. By no process of fair dealing then can olam (or aion in its use in the Septuagint) be said necessarily to mean eternity.

Read the rest of this entry »

As previously mentioned, I am reading Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant. Click here for the introductory post.

I found this portion VERY interesting.

Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATE: I found some notes I forgot to include in this post that I am adding.

As previously mentioned, I am reading Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant. Click here for the introductory post.

Read the rest of this entry »

I finished The End is Now by Rob Stennett. Here is my review.

I am starting Shopping for Time: How to do it All and Not be Overwhelmed by Carolyn Mahaney and Nature’s End by Whitley Strieber.

Update on the reading front:

Read the rest of this entry »

I promised a review of this book, and here it is, though quite brief.

Read the rest of this entry »

Foreword by Peter M. Masters to The Typology of Scripture by Patrick Fairbairn

The recent drift towards a highly technical and less theological method of interpretation is chiefly a reaction against the whimsical and extravagant ’spiritualization’ of biblical passages heard in so many pulpits. However, this reaction often goes too far, creating a hermeneutical straight-jacket that greatly reduces the pastoral scope of the text and inhibits the applied expository approach laid down by Paul. Indeed, at times the new drift seems to want to treat the Bible as a human rather than a divine book.

Read the rest of this entry »

As previously mentioned, I am reading Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant. Click here for the introductory post.

Pages 84 through 86

We are not only said to be the offspring of God, it is precisely pointed out that He is the Father (in contrast with the flesh) of our spirits. “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh, who corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?” (Heb. xii. 9.)

Read the rest of this entry »

As previously mentioned, I am reading Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant. Click here for the introductory post.

Page 73

This leads to a third use of the word “soul” in Scripture which has been already glanced at, but which it will be of use now to consider more at length. As pervading and vitalizing the body, the soul, it is evident, connects itself with the practical life which we live in the flesh in a special way. We have seen that man’s distinctive title, as compared with the rest of moral beings, is that he is a “soul.” It is, accordingly, the word for the “person,” the “self,” while thus in the body. It is, indeed, the only true word in Hebrew for either, while in the New Testament psyche is used correspondingly in several places. It is thus the emphatic I or he. “My soul” is but myself: the soul of a person is but the person himself.

Read the rest of this entry »