Filed Under (Author, Dee Dee Warren) by dee dee on 01-08-2012
Originally posted 6/6/05
I have been following with great interest the arguments of one “Parker” who is a participant at a heretical preterist site (obviously not everyone who participates there is heretical - some are more universalistic in a sense - some see it as their mission field apparently… in any event)…. Parker has made an obvious case in a brilliant way. I have no idea what his eschatology is, but he made an issue that hyperpreterists like to obfuscate crystal clear and stayed on the trajectory. What is Parker’s argument?
Full prets can’t hide their heads in the sand, Sam. There is a grave problem with a final parousia that was neither known to nor experienced by the elect to whom the whole event pertained. Scripture says they would know. They didn’t. There’s your problem. It really exists. Deal with it. Full preterists are stuck teaching a secret parousia (one unknown to anyone that experienced it–especially the elect).
The only remotely decent solution to this is the one proposed by the Fathers who said scripture could have multiple fulfillments. All other explanations discredit Christianity beyond repair.
He goes on to very ably and cogently defend this position. All I can say is that I expect ten hyperpret “rebuttals” to that point as they hop on any hint of a chink in their supposed armour as if burying it with type will hide it.
I am impressed. I do not know Parker whatsoever, and he may in all other ways be in opposition to me, but I know a well-presented argument when I see it. If anyone knows if Parker has written more fully on this, I would love to see it.
Also, Parker has hit on something that has been percolating with me for several years - a firm belief in preterism with nagging feeling that the majority of orthodox preterists are bungling it up by acting like hyper-literalists in reverse - and it is exactly this mentality that is driving the naive to embrace heresy. I hear some hyperprets say, “Oh well read such and such and it is just one teensy step away from my view.” Sometimes they are right - some of us have gotten so drunk on the timing statements that we are inadvertantly becoming that which we scorn in dispensationalists. We deride those who want to stretch soon into millennia while we choke on the camel of our refusal to recognize that Scripture doesn’t have a problem with multiple fulfillments. While we laugh at those who expect a literally black sun and bloody moon, we are the fools for not allowing the Bible to teach us that timing statements do not put the kibosh on anything future.
The conception that Isaiah prophesied was to happen in his lifetime. If a preterist claims otherwise, they are a hypocrite. Yet, we find out that Jesus actually fulfilled it. Hosea tells how God called His Son Isreal out of Egypt - yet Matthew tells us that was “fulfilled” by Jesus. Fulfilled???? How many times have I heard the standard hyperpreterist soundbite, “Ful-filled means fully fulfilled.” Really? To who? Us in our modern arrogance or are we going to humble ourselves and look at the fluidity of the ancients? When we do, we have at our feet some responsibility for those that fall into Hymeneaen chasm.
May I revise my thoughts on this? Absolutely. I praise God that my zeal for preterism did not get in the way of me pondering these thoughts.