Michael Bennet’s False Dilemma!
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Paul on 14-11-2009
Tagged Under : Michael Bennett, Paul's Post
In a recent post at “Sovereign Grace Preterism”, hyperpreterist Michael Bennett, whose contradictory statements elsewhere appear to suggest he is falling into Docetic concepts, (source) has painted a false dilemma. Linking statements from Dr. Kenneth Gentry and Dr. David J. Engelsma regarding their views of certain passages, the hypepreterist makes the following claim,
So - I conclude that (using the Expert Partial Preterist and the Expert Amil hermeneutic) that Revelation 20 and 21 and Romans 8 must be a past event - and must be the same event as 2 Peter 3. http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-hermeneutic-of-the-experts
The underlying problem the hyperpreterist fails to recognize is that while Dr. Gentry and Dr. Engelsma may part company over a given text, one holding that the passage is describing a local judgment in AD70 while the other does not is that both men will be united in their understanding over what the key passages like Ro 8, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, Rev 20 & 21 mean, which is the restoration of creation to that which was lost.
Mr. Bennett no doubt taking his lead from Sam Frost displays the same type of confusion as does Mr. Frost concerning N.T. Wright (source) . Frost can’t comprehend how N.T. Wright can maintain Matt 24 is fulfilled in the 1st Century while maintaining 1 Corinthians 15 is still yet to be accomplished. The answer to both Frost and Bennet is quite simple. These Christians theologians all understand the basic premise of Scripture is to be understood in light of the Judeo-Christian principle that God’s good creation is indeed good and will one day be restored to its former glory pre fall. The point is where Bennett and Frost part company with orthodox reformed evangelical Christianity is at the basic level of understanding what reality is all about. As pointed out by Oscar Cullman,
If we want to understand the Christian faith in the Resurrection, we must completely disregard the Greek thought that the material, the bodily, the corporeal is bad and must be destroyed, so that the death of the body would not be in any sense a destruction of the true life. For Christian (and Jewish) thinking the death of the body is also destruction of God-created life. No distinction is made: even the life of our body is true life; death is the destruction of all life created by God. Therefore it is death and not the body which must be conquered by the Resurrection. http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1115&C=1215
Because the hyperpreterist’s are employing a Pagan Greek Philosophical view of reality, believing God’s good created order is forever doomed to rot in bondgage to sin, and that the body of man will not be redeemed from the grave, they slip into protoGnostic thought. This is reflected in Bennett’s naivety regarding his “Christology” and docetism and in Frost’s anachronistic views of both 1 Corinthians 15 and Luke 20. The reason Bennet can conclude Rev 20, 21 and Ro 8 were fulfilled in the 1st Century is because he has a false, non-Biblical view of reality. These guy’s, while using Christian terminology are redefining the concepts along Pagan Greek views.
The F&HP in their constant search for validation have very few authorities to quote in order to support their assertions. As you point out they have a short line of mostly liberals, and then a whole bunch of Patonic Greek Philoshophers, which even they recognize would not be to their advantage to quote, at least not directly! So they are on the horns of a dilemna, in which they are forced to quote from authoritative Christian sources which may superficially appear to support their position, though the Christian ultimately comes to a different conclusion than does the F&HP. This is ultimately admitted to in statements such as the one by Frost, that there is no compatibility between reformed and F&HP doctrine. Yet they keep trying to establish some system of validation by quoting these same reformed authorities! They find some snippet of info which they then try to run with, only to run out of running room very quickly. It would seem to me that instead of quoting these authortities on the points of agreement, that the F&HP would do better to spend their time exposing the point of departure which they believe the reformed authority diverges from the Truth. Then at least their followers would be able to go off in the ditch at the same guard rail as their leaders! As it is, they all seem to be sliding around on the icy broad road that leads to destruction, and each taking the ditch at their own inclination! By the way it is snowing here and the roads have gotten icy, if you wonder what brought on my analogy! Gk
You have to love Michael Bennett,
Actually Michael, it was I who wrote what you quoted. I’m glad you learned experts may disagree over the interpretation of a given passage. The problem is that you failed to comprehend the point. The point is that while the “experts” may disagree over a given passage they all agree what the metanarrative of God’s plan of redemption is all about. Because the “experts” agree God’s plan of redemption entails the “whole” person that necessarily means the body will be redeemed from the grave, which per 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 is still something yet future. This is a concept which both experts you quoted agree upon. The point is whatever passage is under discussion is interpreted in light of the meta-narrative already presupposed in the text. IOW, Christians don’t redefine the meaning of God’s plan of redemption to fit a preconceived agenda about time texts. BTW, Micheal, the unequivocal time texts in 1 Corinthians 15 and Rev 20 aren’t something Christians ignore, why do the hyperpreterists?