Hello Parker!
Filed Under (Author, Dee Dee Warren) by dee dee on 01-08-2012
Tagged Under : Commenters-Parker, Hermeneutics-Multiple Fulfillment, Hyperpreterism-Church History
Print This Post
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.
I think that is fine. One reason I avoid the idealist position is because it tends to abstract out the historical details of God working in history. I think a position, not really historicist, not really futurist, not really preterist, is most amenable and multiple fulfillments does seem to be viable.
There will only be one full fulfillment, and that is the 2nd coming. Until then we see through the glass darkly.
The only problem I have with “dual fulfillment� is that the OT prophecies (Is. And Hos. Being the most commonly cited) that were “dually� fulfilled had a primary fulfillment (or in the case of Hosea it was an historical statement) which was closer in time to the writing, and discernable when you use the same hermeneutic principles that orthodox preterist apply to Olivet and the other eschatological passages in the NT. And the secondary fulfillment is more typological and only discernable after the fact. And discernable by inspired writers.
Is a double fulfillment of the AD 70 passages possible? Sure. But if this dual fulfillment is to be true to from to the passages you cited, then the fulfillment will by typological and we can not know what it will be until it happens.
IOW, is dual fulfillment possible? Absolutely! Is it useful at all to speculate about what that dual fulfillment might be? Nope.
A notion of “multiple fulfillments of scripture” is much too broad and undefined a phrase to be taken seriously in terms of biblical hermeneutics and biblical eschatology.
Does the typological use of the OT by NT writers (and NT use of OT predictions) justify a theory of “multiple fulfillments of scripture” in our future? In no way that I know of.
Heya John, at one point I would have agreed with you. However that is not the hermeneutics taught to us by the NT (and if you consider eschatology to include the First Advent - then neither does NT eschatology). Why do many Jews reject Christ as Messiah (besides any working of God without which no one can come to faith)? Because they claim that the way the NT “proved” His Messiahship was way too broad and not fitting to Jewish eschatology. The early Church had no issue with this concept. I am not denying the first century application - but I am freeing myself from rigidity on the time statements - a first century application in no means rules out a future - and since we know we are working towards consummation - I expect it. Prophecy, as you well know John, isn’t simply a parlour trick to show how “ooohh God can see the future” but is meant to be pedagogic, anyways this is the way I have been thinking lately. Like all things, it is subject to change at the prompting of the Spirit.
Thanks guys for your comments!
Dee Dee,
Parker is a Roman Catholic, and that is why he is committed to the “fathers” first and foremost. He has no intention on changing his view. The fathers are inspired and the Spirit has placed the deposit of faith within the magisterium in order to guide Mother Church into all truth. Now, as to watching you slowly go the elastic route, it is interesting. Preterists have always charged that partial preterists cannot maintain a consistency when applying “time statements” rigidly and logically. And now, you are showing that they can’t, and that it is necessary to , oh, how did you put it, “a first century application in no means rules out a future.” I honestly had a laugh at this. Next thing you will be saying, Dee, is that John the Baptist was not Elijah!
Samuel Frost
Samuel:
I know nothing about Parker’s background, nor am I prejudiced against Roman Catholics, thus that makes no difference to me. I weighed his argument in light of my positions. Could you please let Parker know I would love to converse with him?
Also as to your trying to dodge the thrust of Parker’s argument by stating that he believes the Fathers are inspired - that is pretty shady of you. Why? Because whether or not Parker believes that, it is irrelevant to the argument he was making - you might as well tell me he prefers butter on his breakfast toast. His argument is true even given the assumption of fallible Fathers. For instance Parker said this:
History can be true, even if not inspired by the Holy Spirit. And, again, we believe the scripture is inspired because later churchmen tell us that the letters of our New Testament are really from the apostles (we can’t confirm any of that, of course–we take them at their word).
There is no rule that says Christians can’t use history to help understand the truth of Scripture. In fact, history is indispensable to the verification of prophecies. Scripture never says “you must use scripture alone to understand the scripture.”
Why are you poisoning the well Samuel?
Lastly, I do hold all of the time statements to have first century fulfillment, but it is you who are being anti-Scriptural to claim no future use. I sure hope you retract that false comment about me - and oh by the way I will be taking you to task here pretty soon about another false statement you made about me. I sure do hope you are “consistent” (we know how you guys bow at the altar of alleged consistency even if it means shredding the redemption) and reject the Virgin Birth prophecy because the all-sacred grand poo-bah timing statement of that prophecy has it fulfilled soon after it was given. Same thing with Hosea. And EGAD, didn’t John say “they shall look on Him whom they have pierced” was FULFILLED at the Cross? BAD John, how DARE he then apply it to an event future to the Cross in Revelation.
Now as far as “slowly” going down some route, it would be really nice if BEFORE making comments about what I believe or have argued, if (and I know this is going to be incredibly novel) You read them first! I have alternated on being deadset against the idea (which I now see as incredibly anachronistic) and being amenable. I have for a few years said that Christ’s “coming” is this entire age. You were snagged on the last blog for your hasty assumptions about what I think and argue.
Dee,
Have your read my two books? The first one deals with history and the second one with resurrection. I can’t wait to read your assumption filled article.
Sam
Dee,
Oh, and which false comment?
Sam
Samuel:
>>Have your read my two books? The first one deals with history and the second one with resurrection. >>
I have neither of your books. I have read other material of yours that is available online. I, however, do not assume what you think on an issue if I have not at least tried to find out what you do.
>>I can’t wait to read your assumption filled article.>>
Wow, Samuel that is a great example of barnyard rooster strutting. Do you feel better now? Pounding your chest might help paired with a Tarzan yell.
What “assumption-filled” article are you referring to that I am going to write?
>>Oh, and which false comment?>>
What are you talking about? I mentioned two of them. To which one are you referring? And did you give Parker my message?
Dee,
Maybe you should read what you yourself wrote! You asked, “What “assumption-filledâ€? article are you referring to that I am going to write?” Well, this one: “and oh by the way I will be taking you to task here pretty soon about another false statement you made about me.” Sounds like an article to me. Secondly, you wrote, “What are you talking about?” in reference to my false comment. Let me remind you of your words: “I sure hope you retract that false comment about me -” I asked YOU, what false comment? What do I have to retract?
Samuel Frost
Hello Samuel:
>>Maybe you should read what you yourself wrote! You asked, “What “assumption-filled� article are you referring to that I am going to write?� Well, this one: “and oh by the way I will be taking you to task here pretty soon about another false statement you made about me.� >>>
I thought that might be what you were referring to but I didn’t think you would think that I am referring to an entire article. Fortunately, in my interactions with you so far, I don’t think there is enough to make an entire negative article - that is actually a sideways copliment. You don’t spam me and a group of others with mail like one of your compatriots, you don’t incessantly IM me in Paltalk and not even get my real name right which is just completely sad that someone can’t even harass accurately. You don’t come into my Paltalk room and spam really badly designed hyperpreterist rant sites. I have my complaints with some things you say, but I have already complimented you on your basic good sense of personal boundaries and inter-personal respect. And I thanked you. Hate to say it Samuel, but you spend a whole lot more time discussing me and what I think than I do you. I am glad I am that fascinating.
But to answer your statement - Samuel - context, context, context. I made that statement in a blog in which I was taking you to task for a false statement, and referred to me doing it again. Reason would lead one to believe that I was referring to a blog bit. And I was.
>>Sounds like an article to me. Secondly, you wrote, “What are you talking about?� in reference to my false comment. Let me remind you of your words: “I sure hope you retract that false comment about me -� I asked YOU, what false comment? What do I have to retract?>>>
Like I said Samuel, I mentioned two, so I wanted to know which one you were referring to. The second one I will keep under wraps for now - it will help to keep you so transfixed by my every word. However, while both of them are worth pointing out, they are not huge on the scale of things, which is why you and I continue to converse. But here is the first one, and I don’t think it was deliberate or malicious (nor do I think the second one I will bring up was) but you get careless when you are show-boating, and that is what happened here. I quote you:
>>[heretical] Preterists have always charged that partial [orthodox] preterists cannot maintain a consistency when applying “time statements� rigidly and logically. And now, you are showing that they can’t, and that it is necessary to , oh, how did you put it, “a first century application in no means rules out a future.�>> [insertions mine]
That is a misrepresentation of what I said, tsk, tsk Samuel. My post absolutely did not say they can’t. Parker may think so, but I do not. It is certainly possible to. I have at various times. It isn’t a matter of can’t at all, but should. Is it Biblical to do so? Second, you miss the finer details Samuel - just like with Isaiah any future referent has zero to do with the time statement. I am NOT saying that the time statement of “this generation” all of a sudden gets expanded. I am saying that after the immediate fulfillment it becomes irrelevant - just like Isaiah’s virgin birth prophecy. You are completely missing the boat on the purpose for prophecy, which isn’t a parlour trick to prove that God can know the future.
BTW Samuel, my hand is doing better though not quite right yet. It is not as painful, now it is just oddly numb in places.
Dee,
That’s good to hear. Hope it’s nothing long term.
Sam
Dee,
I delivered the message to Parker. Perhaps he will respond.
Sam
Thank you Samuel, I hope he does. I like his way of presenting his ideas, how he words them.
Hello Samuel, I have seen Parker’s response, and I wish him well. As I said, it matters not to me, and I anticipated given his participation on a heretical site that he would likely not agree with me on several points. However, it was ironic that he simply assumed I would have an issue with his Catholicism. I do not. My family heritage is Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. However, I found his objection to my use of “damnable heresy” very interesting in light of the Catholic Church’s history of anathematizing heresies, and their current acceptance of the Athanasian Creed. I cite The Catholic Encyclopedia:
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
and
From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundament truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.
All emphasis mine.
Is Parker rejecting the historical words of the Fathers? Does Parker equally think if someone rejects the Trinity that he should build bridges and unite with such as partakers of Christianity(and I quote Parker):
Christians MUST find ways to build bridges where possible and to try to unite around “essentials” where we can.
Ahhh Parker is right. And the consummation IS an essential. If Parker is denying that, he is in stark opposition to the Catholic Church who would NOT accept as “Christians” those who do such. That does not necessary mean that the Vatican II Catholic would necessary say that such ultimately will not be saved.
In any event, his argument is good, and he is articulate, and I have been blessed by reading his comments. Liking or agreeing with me is not a prerequisite for me to give credit where credit is due. I pray God blesses him in his efforts and that eyes will be opened.
Dee,
Well, I warned you, a little. Parker is somewhat of a different Catholic. I think he holds to the essentials, but keeps his bridges with those that might deny some of them. Since Eschatology has never had a major council, and since it is something that has been disagreed upon, the essentials should be the Person of Christ, his atoning work, stemming the tide against rampant immorality in culture, the necessity of Christian influence in society, love for God and love for our neighbor. I honestly think that a full discussion of eschatology has not yet happened (though there are signs that it is beginning to). I believe that a person can hold to their essentials and maintain them, and yet not be so quick to damn someone to hell who has, for the most part of their lives, exemplified a Christian walk and witness. That’s what “damnable” heresy means: the person who holds to it is damned to hell. They used to burn folks for that. I think that it is a sad thing. I know that you have used such terms, but you are not showing me the hatred that I have seen from others and that is appreciated. Parker doesn’t, either. As for his argument being “good” I have asked him to read my book (which he has not). I deal with that very question. Chuck Hill, of RTS, dealt with it briefly in When ShallTTB? but was given a copy of it late. That was a shame. He did not hit the major points. I have since had some of my work confirmed as to the Jewish Apocalyptic influence on early Christian thought (particularly the West). The Ascension of Isaiah and Odes to Solomon, however, even by Hill’s admission (in his book Regnum Caelorum), represent a different Christian strand of a realized eschatology that is not Gnostic. Who knows what other documents we will find in the desert. But, be that as it is, and being that history is what it is, the question is not so simple to dismiss historically, and it cannot be dismissed automatically by simply appealing to creeds. History is a painstaking process. By the way, who killed Kennedy?
Samuel Frost
Samuel:
>>Well, I warned you, a little. Parker is somewhat of a different Catholic. I think he holds to the essentials, but keeps his bridges with those that might deny some of them.>>>
Well like I said, it would matter not to me if was a Hindu, a good argument is a good argument. However, his inconsistency with regards to the Church he has submitted to can make him personally be talking out of both sides. But that is his issue not mine. I am actually more “Catholic” than he on this issue.
>> Since Eschatology has never had a major council, and since it is something that has been disagreed upon, the essentials should be the Person of Christ, his atoning work, stemming the tide against rampant immorality in culture, the necessity of Christian influence in society, love for God and love for our neighbor.>>>
ABSOLUTELY NOT in the way you mean. Eschatology is in fact Christology and you have denied a great part of it. I dealt with this in my assumption-filled article that you wrote a non-rebuttal to
The essentials have been defined, and sorry, hyperpreterism is both creedally hereterical and Biblically heretical. And major councils saw fit to include eschatological statements? Why? Because the councils were in large part Christology, and eschatology is essentially Christology.
>> I honestly think that a full discussion of eschatology has not yet happened (though there are signs that it is beginning to).>>>
Translation: me and my recent band of hyperpreterists are smarter and more spiritually enlightened that the unaminous testimony of the church on the bodily return and resurrection.
Hmmm, sounds familiar. Oh yeah, Joseph Smith makes a similar claim.
>> I believe that a person can hold to their essentials and maintain them, and yet not be so quick to damn someone to hell who has, for the most part of their lives, exemplified a Christian walk and witness. That’s what “damnable� heresy means: the person who holds to it is damned to hell. >>
No, that is a damned heretic. You know I make that distinction. I know atheists that have a better life witness than a lot of Christians. With an essential, the faith is denied. The works don’t make up for the different faith.
>>
They used to burn folks for that. I think that it is a sad thing. >>
Samuel, that is an elephant-hurl polemic. I don’t care what they used to do. That is no better than an atheist arguing against Christianity by bringing up the Inquistion or the Crusades. Christians can and do do wrong things. I can tell you that I am very unappreciative of your claim that I would do the same - but I also recognize that such is part and parcel of polemic, thus I took no personal offense. And of course no one on the heretical site cryed foul, though they yelp like heck if someone says anything remotely critical about them.
>>
I know that you have used such terms, but you are not showing me the hatred that I have seen from others and that is appreciated.>>
Samuel - I shoot straight, and try to have blunt and honest discussions. I appreciate too very much that we can go face to face and use strong language, but neither of us takes it personally. And I also thank you that you do not engage in the ultra-personal tactics of some. I do not hate any person for their theology. I am the type that doesn’t anger or offend easily. There have been some things done against me by some hyperprets that so crosses the line, it as it is, and I have said and been mocked, perverse.
I have had more conversations with you than anyone from your view (with one exception), and never have you been personally abusive, and I do thank you once again for that.
>> Parker doesn’t, either. As for his argument being “good� I have asked him to read my book (which he has not). I deal with that very question. Chuck Hill, of RTS, dealt with it briefly in When ShallTTB? but was given a copy of it late. That was a shame. He did not hit the major points. I have since had some of my work confirmed as to the Jewish Apocalyptic influence on early Christian thought (particularly the West). The Ascension of Isaiah and Odes to Solomon, however, even by Hill’s admission (in his book Regnum Caelorum), represent a different Christian strand of a realized eschatology that is not Gnostic. Who knows what other documents we will find in the desert. But, be that as it is, and being that history is what it is, the question is not so simple to dismiss historically, and it cannot be dismissed automatically by simply appealing to creeds. History is a painstaking process.>>>
Well I disagree obviously with all of the above, but I am considering doing an article on this myself (add it to my list). I think though you are finding that I do not walk in lockstep with the major names of my view.
>>>>By the way, who killed Kennedy?>>>
Jimmy Hoffa
[I almost said Virgil, but I am sure that would prompt the birth of a cow]
BTW, I told you before that I had greatly revised my “Duck” article that I would eventually post. I am going to do that soon.
Well, I for one, am glad to see there seems to be a healthy Christian attitude froming here between the orthodox crowd and the heretic crowd.
Dee Dee: I do have a question regarding this:
[[[[[
>> I believe that a person can hold to their essentials and maintain them, and yet not be so quick to damn someone to hell who has, for the most part of their lives, exemplified a Christian walk and witness. That’s what “damnable� heresy means: the person who holds to it is damned to hell. >>
No, that is a damned heretic. You know I make that distinction. I know atheists that have a better life witness than a lot of Christians. With an essential, the faith is denied. The works don’t make up for the different faith.]]]]]]
Can you please explain to me the difference? Or, if you have written something on it somewhere, could you please point me to it? For I have ASSUMED that you have equated the two, and if you are in fact, drawing a distinction, then I would like to evaluate that. For I have accused you of judging full preterists, and if I am mistaken in that assessment, I want to correct it.
Thank you,
Bryan
Hello Bryan: I have written something on it, but it is old. How about I do a blog on just that issue? You may after read it believe that it is a distinction without a difference, but the distinction is very clear to me.
Parker was/is BJ Parker from Preterist Vision. His preterism defected from full because of everything he was saying and then some, and I have been saying to FP’s, since we have been dialoging in the last few months together. He is Catholic, so it was only a matter of time before I contacted him. He was very critical, as was RE, Sam, and Todd Dennis, in my departure from FP. BJ was there to answer some very pertinent questions I was asking after I had been out of the view for some time.
The church had no idea they just experienced what FP is teaching. Survey says….wrong.
I mean, how am I going to help an atheist convert by teaching historical fulfillment? Say hey, it all happened in 70 CE. Then he says, why didn’t the church, any of them, teach that?
Enlightenment in a vacuum. Foolish.
I didn’t realize all the old comments would go along with republishing an article.
NOTE TO THE READERS: NOTE THE DATE ON COMMENTS. MOST OF THESE ARE FROM 2005 WHEN SAM WAS STILL A HYPERPRETERIST. HE OBVIOUSLY IS NO LONGER ONE.
Also, no personal offense to you Ken, I would nuance a statement I made above differently today. I have a much stronger stance than I did then against the official teachings of the RCC. However, that is simply not my area of apologetics or study. I take each individual professed Catholic on their own terms. I do not wish to list or get into a debate on the things I do have issues with– again, not my bailiwick or calling, but they would definitely include views on Mary, justification, the Mass etc. Just wanted to get that out in the open.
If anyone is concerned about long ago comments getting pulled along with reposts, contact me privately, and I will make a habit of just copying the text and publishing articles anew without the old comments. I apologize again if this perturbed anyone. I know I may not necessarily want to have to relive comments from well over five years ago on things on which I may definitely have changed my views.
My bad…. if no one contacts me though, it is easier to just republish articles…. and if anyone does contact me, it will be kept confidential, so just let me know.
No worries Dee. It was this statement that brought him to my attention.
“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.”
Wasn’t focusing on any RCC doctrine at all, or the fact that Sam was a hyperpret then, just simply the above statement. Big, big, big elephant. He was pretty well known in the old days. But thanks for your cordiality.
Blessings.