Having a Smashing Good Time
Filed Under (Gatekeeper, Uncategorized, hyperpreterism) by Gatekeeper on 11-11-2009
Tagged Under : ad70, Alan Bondar, Pentecost, repentance of Israel
The following article is to be found on SGP, DID, PD, and “Last Day Madness,” thus I think we can assume that it is representative of the F&HP position on a number of issues.
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/smashing-brian-simmons-attempt?id=1632544%3ATopic%3A68234&page=2#comments
“Smashing Brian Simmons’ Attempt to Smash Full Preterism
Smash full preterism now! That is the title of a podcast series by Brian Simmons, which can be found here. According to the description, the podcast is “for listeners looking for a Scriptural answer to full preterism.”
Why are they looking for a Scriptural answer? Because they don’t have one. Why not? Because there isn’t one. But Simmons makes an attempt to find a Scriptural answer to give to people who are trying to find one.Think about it: Why are people looking for a Biblical answer to full preterism? Because full preterism is convincing. And since people have been taught that they need professionals to help them understand the meaning of the Scriptures, in spite of the fact that the truth is clear and obvious, they look to the professionals for help because the Bible can’t possibly be that clear. So instead of believing what they themselves have seen with their own eyes, they look for the more difficult meaning that fits what they have believed all along. Enter Simmons.”
According to Bondar, Preterism has achieved the status of Divine Decree! It is not to be questioned, and if you do question Preterism, it only demonstrates your ignorance of the Perfection to be found in Preterism. Preterism is so perfect, that nothing remains to be perfected. Preterism is so convincing you have no excuse to not be convinced! Your ignorance, by your questions, only validates the Divine Decree!
Now if you are confused instead of convinced, then it is because you are searching for scriptural answers, and there are none to be found according to Bondar. Why would one want a scriptural answer for Preterism? Because there are none! That sounds convincing to me! I really wonder if Brian Simmons was convinced though? Maybe Brian was just smashed? Congratulations though to Brian for trying to give the “listeners,” some scriptural answers, though it must be difficult when confronted with such an insurmountable document of revelation found in the Divine Decree of Preterism!
Here is the real convincer though, Brian is a professional! A professional what, boxer? Wrestler? Maybe an Electrician, or even a film Maker! However the only professional in this discussion by Bondar so far, is Bondar. He is the one who is a Pastor of a church, and I am sure we are all impressed! Frost claims to not be the leader of the F&HP, since I understand he tried to form a church, but I don’t know that he even succeeded in doing that. But Bondar has a church supporting him, and I suppose there are folks who come to him for answers, and how to understand the Scriptures! So exactly who is it that is handing out more difficult things to understand, in order to keep the ignorant masses flocking to him to hear his Divine Decrees? At least we have finally found the leader of Preterism, Bondar - the upholder and defender of the Divine Decree!
Bondar continues, much of which remains is for Brian to answer for himself, since he has not participated in this thread since it is on SGP, where I doubt Brian has Posting Privileges. This is rather convenient for Bondar, since even Brian is not allowed to question the Divine Decree! But being able to answer for Brian, is apparently one of Bondar’s Divine Gifts! So I will post this segment for the benefit of Brian so that he can respond for himself if he would like to add his comments, then the rest of us can comment, as we feel led!
”He starts by refuting partial preterism, and might I add, does a superb job. He demonstrates from Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection happens in conjunction with the parousia. Therefore, if the parousia happened in 70 AD, then the resurrection happened in 70 AD. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:51 to demonstrate that Paul expected the resurrection to occur in his lifetime. Paul was indeed including himself in the word, “we.” He expected to be in that number that would not sleep. Thus, the resurrection was expected to happen in the first century. The Partial preterists say the resurrection didn’t happen. Simmons states that full preterists “spiritualize” the resurrection and that both partial and full preterists place the parousia in 70 AD. Then he goes on to say that they’re both wrong because there was no physical resurrection in 70 AD. Thus, since there was no physical resurrection in 70 AD, then there was no parousia.Yet Simmons never demonstrates that the resurrection is physical. He assumes it because his listeners who are looking for a Biblical answer to full preterism also assume it. After all, since the majority of Christians today believe in a physical resurrection, then it must be biblical. Majority determines truth, right?
Simmons makes a passing remark that in
, the Greek word for “sign” always refers to something that is visible. He doesn’t elaborate on it, but gives the impression that Matthew 24 is about the resurrection, and therefore, the resurrection must be visible. But the focus of Matthew 24 is not the resurrection. Rather, the focus is the destruction of the Temple buildings that would be destroyed – a fairly visible event.Simmons quickly moves on to state that the phrase “end of the age” is very important. Why? Apparently, it isn’t important because it’s referring to the end of the Old Covenant age which would come via the destruction of the Temple. According to Simmons, the phrase is important because Christ already defined it in Matthew 13: The parables of the mysteries of the kingdom. Let’s follow Simmons: In Jesus’ interpretation about seed sown among thorns, the word “world,” in verse 22, is the same word that the disciples used in
, Christ interprets “world” and “age” as “life.” According to Simmons, this is the period when people are saved by the seed being sown. Therefore, the parables are about the time since 70 AD and before: that is what “this age” is all about.In response to Simmons, the first thing to note is that the parables are spoken to and about Israel. Jesus’ ministry on earth was to the house of Israel. Second, the distinction between Jew and Gentiles was dissolving under the ministry of apostles. Thus, there was no more focus on physical Jews receiving the Word with joy after the parousia because the distinction between Jew and Gentile was obliterated. Third, Simmons leads his listeners to believe that the parables are about everybody that will ever exist. Yet these parables are NOT about what would happen after the parousia. Simmons eisegetes much into these parables. The context of the parables is about seed going out during the age they were living in. They teach nothing about the age to come. It is not a good and necessary inference that the parables imply that seed will stop being sown after the end of the age.The point is, Jesus is teaching what the kingdom of heaven would be like until the end of the age. Simmons attempts to make a whole case against preterism by producing an existential argument using a text that cannot substantiate his claim. Just because Simmons says that the continual spread of the Gospel today means we are still in that “present age” does not make it so. In other words, the continual spread of the Gospel today does not mean that we are still in that “present age.” All it means is that the Gospel continues to spread.
Fifth, Simmons is really grasping at straws by trying to make a case out of Luke’s use of the word “life” instead of “age” or “world.” Again, just because
speaks of the worries and riches and pleasures of “this life” does not imply what Simmons wants it to imply about the “age to come.”The same goes for Simmons’ interpretation of
concerning “the present evil age.” Simmons says, “The age is characterized by evil. It is evidential in nature. To say ‘this age’ ended is to overthrow the moral teachings of Jesus and to overthrow the Gospel.” How so? All of the arguments presented by Simmons completely ignore the Biblical framework of full preterism. He assumes a literal rendering of any Biblical text that helps him “prove” that all the prophecies have to be fulfilled in an evidential way. Anyone who comes to Simmons for professional help in defeating full preterism will be satisfied with his answers only if they are content with a framework that makes cartoons out of prophecies.The Smash Preterism Now podcast states, “This podcast will be found essential to a right understanding of what Christ and His inspired apostles meant when they placed the parousia in a first-century context.” Simmons has yet to explain, in his podcast, what Christ and His inspired apostles meant. He assumes a physical resurrection and claims an evidential problem. Where is the evidential problem? Just because Simmons claims that the texts that he gave are about physical things does not make it so. He has proven nothing except that partial preterists are inconsistent. People who are “looking for” a Biblical answer to full preterism will be content with Simmons’ answer because they have the same unsupported presuppositions that he does.
Simmons presents four texts that contain conditional elements that full preterists use to demonstrate that the parousia happened in 70 AD. These texts are
Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 23:39, and Matthew 24:34
.Each of these verses contains the Greek double negative – the strongest possible negative in the Greek language. The latter clause in each of these verses contains the untranslatable word, “an”, which renders the force conditional. This conditional particle makes the first part of these verses conditional upon the second part. According to Brian, the subjunctive verb in these verses makes the case that the condition stated may or may not take place. Thus, according to Simmons, Christ is saying that the first half of each verse will not take place unless the second half might or might not take place. The condition might take place. Then again, it might not take place. To state Simmons’ position clearly: Christ is just wasting his breath. Let’s take a look:
: “And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.”Simmons states that the interpretation of this text is a matter of Grammar. So in essence, Jesus is saying, “You might or might not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man might or might not come.” If this is the case, then Jesus isn’t a prophet at all. He isn’t stating anything that anybody couldn’t state. Anyone can say, “I might or might not finish eating this sandwich before I might or might not get indigestion.” This is the absurdity that Simmons’ argument amounts to. If Jesus can be a prophet by stating these types of prophecies, then I guess I’m a prophet too!
. Simmons conveniently leaves verse 27 out of his lecture so that his listeners who are looking for a Scriptural answer to full preterism will leap for joy. Here are both verses together:27`For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. 28Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.’
Simmons states that understanding verse 28 is a matter of Grammar. He also believes that Young translates verse 28 correctly, according to Grammar. Does Young translate verse 27 correctly, according to Grammar? There are no conditions in verse 27. The Greek word, mello, is correctly translated by Young as “about to.” Again, according Simmons, verse 28 means, “There are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they might or might not see the Son of Man coming in his reign.” So once again, Jesus is essentially telling those standing there that they might or might not die before they see the coming of Christ. Taking Simmons’ line of reasoning, Jesus actually told us nothing about when His coming would happen. He simply played mind games to astonish a bunch of brainless followers.”
This ends the rather typical Preterist presentation of Preterism, which in itself, is a very clear presentation of what Preterism basically claims. Good job Bondar, this is as close to a creedal statement as anything I have yet heard, sort of the Preterist version of the Four Spiritual Laws.
Fittingly Bondar mentions the brainless followers who Brian is playing mind games with. Is this some sort of Freudian Slip on the part of Bondar? Are not these the same ones who have bought into Preterism and are drinking the Kool-aid offered by Bondar? I guess Bondar would know his “brainless followers!”
Bondar continues now with something I found most interesting and revealing! In attempting to prove his assertions about the validity of Preterism, Bondar questions Brian’s reference to the events of Pentecost. Let’s follow along!”In each of the verses that Simmons presents, we have a definite conditional clause. For Simmons, understanding their meaning is a question of Greek Grammar. The fulfillment of the statement is contingent on the fulfillment of the condition. And what is the condition according to Simmons? The condition of Christ’s coming is Jewish national repentance and their acceptance of Him as Messiah. What text does Simmons use to make his case?
, which teaches that the condition for Christ’s return is Israel’s repentance. And, according to Simmons, since Israel never repented, the parousia of Christ never happened.Yet Simmons conveniently fails to read the rest of the passage. As it turns out, the number of believing men that day “came to be about five thousand” (4:4). Simmons believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Well, Peter was literally speaking to those men of Israel when he gave the condition: 19″Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.””
So in fact Israel did repent according to the Preterist Bondar! This may be news to a lot of other Preterist, but let us see where he is going with this!
”Further, Simmons fails to read verses 22-23: 22″Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. 23′And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” What Simmons fails to communicate is that Israel was repenting and turning to the Lord. But Simmons must believe that every physical Israelite alive on earth prior to the coming of Christ will repent in order to fulfill the condition stated by Peter. Yet, if this is true, then according to verses 22-23, the coming of Christ will never happen because “every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” Who are “THE” people? Are they people of planet earth? Of course not. The context is Israel. So according to Peter, every soul that does not heed that prophet will be destroyed; yet Simmons appears to be arguing that every Jew must be saved in order to fulfill the condition for Christ’s return. If, on the other hand, Simmons will concede that every Jew doesn’t have to be saved, then he loses his proof text for an unfulfilled condition of Israel’s repentance. Acts 3-4 tells us that about five thousand men were saved. Prior to this, about three thousand Jewish souls were saved in Acts 2. So what’s the magic number? What number will Simmons give that fulfills the condition?”
So according to Bondar, not all Israel had to repent, in order for the repentance of the few to be counted as national repentance! I would wonder how few is too many too few? If even one repented like in Sodom? Lot was very few too few, to save Sodom. So Bondar, what is the Magic Number? You tell us!
”Simmons applies the condition of Israel’s repentance to all of the time texts that Jesus spoke and states that they all must be interpreted in light of that condition. Yet, not one of those time texts contains any hint of such a condition. He tries to demonstrate this condition of Israel’s repentance by using a series of Old Testament texts as examples of conditional prophecies.
Interestingly enough, Simmons is arguing the same way that Richard Pratt argues in, When Shall These Things Be?, even to the extent of using the same Scriptures. One must wonder if Simmons learned his arguments from Pratt’s chapter. Pratt’s arguments are dealt with in detail by Edward J. Hassertt in House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?. Since this article is long enough, I encourage the reader of this article to read House Divided, especially Hassertt’s response to Pratt. Suffice it to say that the end result of Pratt’s and Simmons’ arguments is that there is no certainty about anything because nothing that God predicted will ever happen since everything is contingent upon conditions placed upon humanity. As it turns out, their theology is nothing more than Open Theism.”
So I have a question for Bondar, if Israel repented at Pentecost, and there were five thousand plus three thousand who turned to the Lord. And we also know that according to Romans, Israel would be grafted back in before the end of the age, so that all Israel would be saved. The Preterist teach that we have come to the end of that age, in 70AD, so all Israel must have repented, so then why was it necessary for God to destroy the temple in Jerusalem because of the lack of national repentance on the part of Israel? Remember Bondar, you just claimed that all Israel did repent! Or maybe you are not certain what you remember! Did God promise these things, or did He not?
I know I am not suppose to ask the Praeterist questions, but I can’t help myself, being that I didn’t get the memo from God about Preterism being a Divine Decree, or Bondar being the Divine emissary of God! So excuse me if I continue asking questions which don’t validate Bondar and the other Preterist, and indicate that I am far from convinced! Neither am I one of your brainless followers so I expect real answers and not just some more Kool-Aid.
The Eastgate is open, the King is in Residence!
Whosoever will, may come in!
Gatekeeper
Thanks Tom for this delightful commentary! I am seriously enjoying it!
Oh…and BTW Brian HAS interacted with Alan regarding this - you can see it at preterismdebate.ning.com - titled the same as on each ning site…you don’t need to be a member to view the posts!
Blessings!
Gatekeeper,
Wow, I didn’t realize that Alan had posted this over at SGP and DID as well as PD! After my initial response, I suggested that he and I have a formal debate, and he acceeded. I still have to get back to him about the preliminary details.
I have to say, that his interaction is quite explicit — although I’m not sure if he listened to the third part of my series called “The Forerunner of the Kingdom.” Alan’s comparing me to Richard Pratt is a fine compliment, though I’ve never read Pratt in my life. For the most part, I am followinng the systematic theology of Dr. E.W. Bullinger, a fine expositor of God’s word, and an acknowledged authority of N.T. Greek.
You asked Alan a very good question, and this is something I also have pointed out. If national repentance is the condition of Christ’s return, then the judgments of the Jewish war (brought upon the nation for their refusal to accept Him as Messiah) can in no sense be a return of Christ. Matthew 23: 39 makes this plain.
I hope Alan answers your question. But if he doesn’t, I’m sure it will be brought out in our upcoming debate. BTW, if anyone knows of an impartial moderator, please have them contact me. Like I told Alan, this will be the most difficult factor to get squared, since most folks dislike my position just as much as they do his. But all must agree that the Scriptures are supreme arbiter in this controversy. Despite our differences, Alan and I are both committed to a through investigation of the inspired Word of God.
Brian
Welcome to the authors Gk. It is important to look at Alan Bondar. Who is this guy. Let’s let him tell us himself so we will not be accused of “slander”. First Mr. Bondar claims to be a “pastor” — see his “church” website here: http://messiahreformed.com/
On the “About” page, one of the first things we read about Mr. Bondar is this line:
You can see what the focus is — his ” full preterism”.
The “church” is called a “Reformed” church yet we don’t see where it was planted by any other Reformed congregation. He doesn’t speak of any ordination or sanction. Once again, like Sam Frost’s fake pastorate, we see another fake pastor. Oops — will Phil Naessens now come here to chide me to respect these “elders”? How dare I challenge them.
Like the typical hyperpreterist “church”, their “beliefs” page seems to be missing something…any CLEAR mention of their hyperpreterism. They are good at trying to make it look like they are “Reformed”, even posting the “solas” but not so clear on what obviously drives Mr. Bondar. Not that they are really hiding anything since going to Mr. Bondar’s blog reveals it all. It is just that at the official church site, someone might get the wrong idea. How many of us know all the theological terms? So when someone reads “full preterism”, they may have no idea what they are talking about. However, most Reformed people do adhere to the “solas”. Thus they might enjoin with Mr. Bondar before they realize what they have gotten into.
Lastly, a look at the links page (until they change it) reveals that the “church” is all about hyperpreterism.
So, I don’t take Mr. Bondar too seriously. He is just another fake “pastor” hiding behind Reformed when in reality he is not accepted by any legitimately Reformed organization or ministry.
Brian, I think that Bondar did post this to SGP and PD, but I believe Scargy copied it to his sites. Which as I stated at the first, would indicate that it has a broad appeal in the F&HP cosmos! I found the central comments representative of F&HP, and the verses quoted a gold mine of study opportunities. His initial comments were rather strange and unprofessional considering that he is supposedly the professional in the discussion!
His final comments though were the most curious, and I am still meditating on them as to what they actually say about Bondar’s Preterism! Part of the reason I posted this was to get some feed back other than the standard Preterist fare offered on their sites. SGP seemed more interested in talking about goatees, though I did find what was said on PD again revealing!
Either the prophesy of the Parousia, Resurrection, end of the Age, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, is Conditional or unconditional, or is it just the timing? They claim that it is not conditional, and yet make all kinds of conditional statements based upon the status of Israel, and why it all had to end in 70AD. Then they are forced to fit their understanding of the Parousia and Resurrection into the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem, claiming that the Jews were displaced, not replaced, by the Christians at that time in the economy of God. Yet we continue to find the Jews functioning throughout the following 2000 years, hardly having been eliminated.
On the othe hand, I would also have difficulties accepting the conditions you find pertinent! But then I am neither a F&HP, or a dispensatioanalist, so maybe there is a third alternative? Gk
One has to wonder if RTS is aware of his position on hyperpreterism and if they even care. Sad to say the least especially when the application for RTS specifically states:
Hmmm…you have to really wonder.
Hello Mr. Hill,
In all fairness to Alan Bondar, allow me to just add that Alan and i have shared many conversations on the phone together during the time he was essentially transitioning out of that PCA church because of his Preterism, and I believe that because the church was helping defer his tution costs to RTS, that when that support stopped, he had to discontinue his program there.
Relative to the idea that he would not have been able to satisfy the admission requirements relative to his Preterism, I think that he was coming to that view some time after he was accepted and had started his program. Now, should he inform them upon his return that he has shifted over in eschatology to Preterism? No doubt he should.
As to his lack of ordination in the formal sense, he has none to my knowledge. A couple of months ago he was on the phone with me about obtaining ordination through our church here in Omaha. At that time I gave him a brief examination over the phone as to where he lined up with basic WCF material. He really was not yet ready to stand on a floor for examination and I asked him to go through the confession and list for me the things he agreed with and why as well as the things that he disagreed with and why, and that after he had complted that, we could talk further. I have not heard back from him yet. Because it begs the question i will say that no, we are not planning on ordaining Alan Bondar.
Dr. B…
Dr. Birks,
Yes, I appreciate what you stated here and I agree with you that he should disclose his change in eschatology to RTS (I think some would call that “integrity”) since his situation has changed dramatically since he first applied and was accepted. Now, I do not know that he has not done so (perhaps he has) and I am willing to be shown that he has.
Anyhow, thanks for the background information.
WARNING: If anyone is thinking of contacting RTS to ask them about their policy on hyperpreterism (without even mentioning Alan Bondar), you might get accused of “threatening” RTS. You might have your private email sent to Alan Bondar or Sam Frost so that he can respond to it. You might get accused of inappropriate “tactics” if you dare ask a supposed Christian institution about its position concerning this heresy. Then you might be further painted by the authorities of that institution as the problem…at least that might happen if the pattern holds.
Kelly, Alan Bondar, no matter what he says about the WCF, is NEVER going to be fit to be a REAL “pastor” as long as he is adhering to and promoting hyperpreterism. Please don’t make the mistake again of giving any validity to hyperpreterism by having anything to do with these men thinking they are being “ordained”.
William, thanks for your research on RTS. Good stuff!
Roderick… please, as you know I am a student at WTS, and they HAVE stated their position on hyperpreterism. Please do not make it seem like they have not.
Giving the letter to Samuel was not an issue. If someone wrote about me, I would hope that I would get to see the accusations. Samuel publicly responding was the issue, and WTS nor Dr. Talbot told him to do that. You are losing your head on this.
How did Dr. Talbot know it was “about Sam” — I never mentioned Sam in the letter. I think you have identified your bias Dee Dee when you stated: “I am a student at WTS”. I’m seeing more and more that Dr. Talbot buys his influence over others.
YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD RODERICK!
He knew it was about Sam because he knew Sam was a hyperpreterist Roderick. We have been down this road. No, I have not pointed out my “bias” in stating that I am a student, I have pointed that I would never be affiliated with any institution that was supporting hyperpreterism. It is no different than saying that I will post at such and such forum (because they take a proper stand on hyperpreterism) and I will not post at such and such forum. It isn’t a bias, it is my evaluation of the situation.
I will email you this weekend Roderick. I literally passed out last night from exhaustion and didn’t do anything I intended upon doing. That isn’t said to engender sympathy, it is just to state reality. I don’t have a strong constitution, and I am not yet used to having to shoulder the responsibility of the household and myself all by myself. It will get easier, but I am not yet at the point where every day I am a powerhouse that has it in her to deal with drama. I had intended to write last night, but I shut my eyes and just reopened them. I didn’t even cover my birds’ cages. I have prior engagements for tonight, but I will try to write if I can. I fully intended to once I got off work yesterday but apparently I was more tired than I thought.
I have a document inspection today at work. I am running late… I cannot write this morning.
Thank you Dee Dee. Take care.
Hi Phil, I appreciate your concern for the Stress which Dee Dee and Roderick are experiencing, regarding the interrupted debate with Dr. Talbot. However I hope that you can understand that it is best for us to allow them time to work out their issues. Your prayers are much appreciated! I also expect that Sharon and Dr. Talbot would appreciate your prayers as well! Pouring gas on the fire at this point really is not helping! There is plenty of gas being poured on from other quarters, so it would be best for all to hold our judgement. Dee Dee has enough on her plate right now, without having to deal with this, which is what I understood her to be saying earlier in her post. I am sure you can understand, and I look forward to your other comments regarding my post specifically.
You did mention Alan Bondar, who I do not know, except from my SGP Internet experience! As a F&HP, he endorses specific doctrines which are considered heretical, heterodox, and damnable. He may be a very nice guy, and may even teach his congregation about the Love of God as he understands it. He may even have a very loving congregation, but then I have been in Mormon and JW congregations which are very loving, at least to those who are members in good standing! I have yet to have Alan Bondar reach out to me in Love, and his acceptance of the banning imposed by SGP, is tantamount approval of their attitudes toward those who may be more difficult to love than members of their own group!
I realized that I went out of my way to be difficult, in order to quickly dispel the impression of their willingness to understand and accept differences. This has even been shown today on Preterism Debate, with the banning of Brian Simmons, and even the tacit banning of Dr. Birk. They knew going in that Brian was not in agreement with their position, but they kept him around as a token opponent of F&HP, for the appearance of being open to debate. Brian being a dispensationalist, was no mystery to them, and they used him to jack up their position on the newly opened site of Preterism Debate. When that debate went against them, they were more than willing to throw him under the bus.
I also know that you have been cross-wise with the AD Mins of SGP at times, so you should understand that if you are going to firmly represent your position, and allow them no quarter for theirs, that your time will be limited as well! That may not be the way you believe the Lord has directed you to deal with F&HP, and that is why we are each accountable to Him as the Lord of the Harvest! I will be praying for you in your direct contact with the F&HP.
Your Brother in Christ, Gatekeeper
Not from me. I’m no longer interacting with two-face Phil.
Hi,
I see another comment was deleted. Oh well.
Take Care Roderick
Phil
Good morning everyone, I really do not believe that Phil’s inquiries should have been deleted. As such, I am going to repost his one question myself:
As for the second issue, let me sum up my understanding:
1. Samuel made an accusation about Roderick contacting someone’s employer.
2. Roderick says he didn’t do so and asked Phil to get the specific proof from Samuel.
3. It appears that Phil has some information but not the whole thing.
Here is the way things need to go. Roderick, you made a public statement about Dr. Talbot, and whether or not you like Phil right now, I believe Phil has every right to ask it.
As far as the phone call thing, from the little I read, I do not believe this is something that can be understood in blog entries. Thus, I am asking everyone to take that to private email, and when we come to some sort of mutual understanding of the facts, then we can post. This was all asked for and done publicly.
Gatekeeper, if you would prefer that the discussion regarding Roderick and Dr. T happen in another post, please let me know since this is totally de-railing your post.
We are not going to be like the hyperpreterists. Honest questions on issues of ethics are going to get answered. Those move outside of theology and do not amount to allowing hyperpreterists to proselytize here. Anyone, no matter who, whether we like them or not, who raises an honest ethical inquiry that has not been addressed, will get a hearing.
Now, I will take this conversation private. But I will post on the results for comments made publicly as we are all responsible for our public words.
Good morning everyone, I really do not believe that Phil’s inquiries should have been deleted. As such, I am going to repost his one question myself:
Roderick.
Lets try this again.
Please share how Dr. Talbot “buys his influence over others”? That’s an awfully
bold statement, perhaps even libelous.
Oh, and for the record, RTS has on its staff Kistemaker and Wilson, I’m sure
you’ve all heard of them right? I wonder where those two stand on the issue of
F%HP?
What about Dr. John Frame? He’s on staff there as well. Wonder what he thinks of F%HP?
As for the second issue, let me sum up my understanding:
1. Samuel made an accusation about Roderick contacting someone’s employer.
2. Roderick says he didn’t do so and asked Phil to get the specific proof from Samuel.
3. It appears that Phil has some information but not the whole thing.
Here is the way things need to go. Roderick, you made a public statement about Dr. Talbot, and whether or not you like Phil right now, I believe Phil has every right to ask it.
As far as the phone call thing, from the little I read, I do not believe this is something that can be understood in blog entries. Thus, I am asking everyone to take that to private email, and when we come to some sort of mutual understanding of the facts, then we can post. This was all asked for and done publicly.
Gatekeeper, if you would prefer that the discussion regarding Roderick and Dr. T happen in another post, please let me know since this is totally de-railing your post.
We are not going to be like the hyperpreterists. Honest questions on issues of ethics are going to get answered. Those move outside of theology and do not amount to allowing hyperpreterists to proselytize here. Anyone, no matter who, whether we like them or not, who raises an honest ethical inquiry that has not been addressed, will get a hearing.
Now, I will take this conversation private. But I will post on the results for comments made publicly as we are all responsible for our public words.
GK,
For the record, I wasn’t banned from PD. I voluntarily left — albeit with the full knowledge that I would have been banned anyhow, as I refused to retract my stance on the inherent Anti-Semitism of H.P. I’ve always found Larry to be a fair guy. However, it is clear that his desire to protect the “community” fuels his administrative policies. This is the only blemish in what would otherwise be a model “debate site.”
Peace & Health,
Brian
Dee Dee and all, I have no objection to this blog being used to discuss the current issue, since the OP was really about “Smashing” pretenses which interfere in our Life in Christ! I believe that Alan Bondar is aware of the pretentiousness of his original claims, and so my original intent has been served. Beyond that if the Lord chooses to use this blog to clarify other issues, who am I to hinder Him! I agree that there is alot that should first be done with private emails, then if you all choose to announce your resolution on this blog, I will only be to glad to be of service! Gk
Brian, I am aware of the nuance of being banned and withdrawing your membership! I was watching your discussions, and was wondering how much longer you would last. Especially when I saw Sam ask Larry, how much longer were they going to have to put up with your presentation! The same occurred with Rod and myself! It seems that when Sam rings Larry’s bell, Larry can’t help salivating all over the Banning option! So though it may be a decision that Larry makes, he is hardly free in his programmed response!
I was most interested in observing from the outside, the process though. I have heard the F&HP claim that the dispensationalist offer a wooden literal translation! What I have observed is that the F&HP are no less wooden, and a whole lot less literal!
It wll be interesting to see how they discuss their issues among themselves now that they have eliminated the bulk of the opposition. Theough I do still hear some dissenting voices. Gk
I was not forced to take action against Brian by anyone. I respect Brian (as also is the case with GK and Roderick) for their convictions. I simply asked that Brian not refer to Preterists (in any form) as Nazi who would exterminate the Israeli people. I did not ask him to compromise his convictions, but simply not use such inflamitory language. I honestly tried to be fair.
Actually what is worse is that the doctrines of hyperpreterism “exterminate” the faith of some. The doctrines of hyperpreterism attempt to “exterminate” the sovereignty of God and the continuity of the community of saints, by claiming that 2000 years of united Christian interpretation has been wrong. To me, that is even more offensive than being a Nazi.
Roderick: “The doctrines of hyperpreterism attempt to “exterminate” the sovereignty of God and the continuity of the community of saints, by claiming that 2000 years of united Christian interpretation has been wrong. To me, that is even more offensive than being a Nazi.”
My response: The historic church never made a deliberate and systematic distinction between “justification” and “regeneration” until the 1500s.
Therefore, according to Roderick’s logic, the Reformed doctrine that “justification” and “regeneration” are systematically distinct “exterminates” the sovereignty of God and the continuity of the community of saints. Therefore, according to Roderick’s logic, being Reformed is more offensive than being a Nazi.
Therefore, according to Roderick’s logic, he should be a Roman Catholic.
Dave
Hi Dave,
I’ve been reading the work of Ambrose of Milan (339-397AD) and I do believe he nailed justification by faith and would be considered in agreement with the WCF on the matter of regeneration. Both Luther and Calvin appealed to Ambrose in their work.
Can you show me where you think Ambrose failed in clarity?
Hi Dorothy,
Thank you for writing to me.
As far as I remember, Ambrose didn’t believe that there was any justification apart from the sacrament of regeneration (water baptism). Ambrose would allow for an exception if one died on his way to his baptism; but ordinarily, he taught, justification and regeneration were both met in water baptism, and he made no systematic (ordo salutis) distinction between the two.
I’m sorry I don’t have a quote. It has been a long time since I’ve read Ambrose, and his works are voluminous. You’ve been reading him though. Do you have a quote from him that conflicts with what I’ve written here?
Thank you again for writing.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Well, thank you for responding. :))
Since Ambrose made an exception as you’ve agreed to, then he certainly recognized that man was justified by faith alone.
Yes, he placed great weight on water baptism, but he didn’t hold it to be a necessary ingredient now did he?
Hi Dorothy,
Ambrose believed that apart from the extraordinary circumstance of someone dying on his way to be baptized, baptism was “a necessary ingredient” if one wanted to be justified and regenerated.
More importantly though, Ambrose made no deliberate, systematic distinction between justification and regeneration. No one did that until the 1500s –even as no one taught “hyper-preterism” until the 1800s.
If “hyper-preterists” are heretics just because they believe something that’s “new,” then all Reformed/Protestant believers are heretics too.
But if the Reformers were correct about their “new” doctrine, then there is only one potentially valid method of condemning “hyper-preterists”:
Scripture.
Apart from that authority, all the anathemas in the world are dust and vanity.
Dave
Hi Dave,
Here are a couple of quotes from Ambrose:
“What can we do worthy of heavenly rewards? By what labours, by what sufferings, can we wash away our sins? Not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God, the heavenly decrees concerning men are issued.” (Expos. On Ps. 118, 20:42)
“God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest any should glory in his deeds and should thereby incur sin.” (In Ps. 43 enarr. 14)
“‘we are not justified by our works but by faith, since our fleshly weakness is an impediment to our works, but the clarity of faith which merits the forgiveness of sins overcomes the error of our works.”
It is faith that covers up our sins.
May I humbly suggest that you read Ambrose through a cessationist lens which your position requires of you and which I held as an HP? Yes, Ambrose closely associated the sacraments in his dialogs but he is also clear that they are a “result” of faith and we are NOT justified by our works. I do hold that my reading of Ambrose reveals he did understand our judicial standing and from our judicial standing we step right into the process of sanctification.