The Greenhouse Effect
Filed Under (dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 19-06-2005
Tagged Under : David Green
For a while now I have taken note of an admirable admission from David Green as follows:
“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”
It has been implied that I have misused that quote or misrepresented David Green in my use in some manner. I absolutely have not. The larger context is a discussion/debate between preterist Keith Mathison, and hyperpreterist David Green.
All that my use purports to represent is that David Green conceded that if Keith Mathison was correct in his eschatology, then David Green holds to damnable doctrine.
Read my use. Okay. Now read the original statement. Did I misuse it? Absolutely not. David Green conceded a point that other hyperpreterists avoid like someone giving away a syringeful of malaria. Now I am not the only one to notice this. David Green for some reason thought that sending me this link would somehow show that I misunderstood him. Strange. But much to my interest, I was not the only one who noticed Green’s glaring, and refreshingly honest, admission. This is from the link David sent me:
ANONYMOUS: I want everyone to know that you were forced to concede a MAJOR point to Keith Mathison. In your article Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds, you originally said:
“If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is possibly a damnable doctrine.” Emphasis added [by original writer not DDW].
Keith Mathison caught you red-handed on that watered-down statement and you had to back pedal frantically and admit a humiliating and crushing defeat for all of preterdom! You were deeply humiliated into recanting, my friend. 
I quote for all the world to see:
“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then preterism is definitely (not ‘possibly,’ as I said) a damnable doctrine.”
Here is the web page for everyone to see your shame and nakedness:
http://www.strato.net/~dagreen/matresponse.html
Mathison ground you into oblivion! He brought you to the dust! He forced you to admit what no other preterist has the guts to admit: That this is NOT merely an “in-house” issue but one of two separate houses! By your own words, preterism and futurism are two radically separate faiths. By your own words, one is the truth and the other is “a damnable doctrine.”
And guess what? Preterists are at variance with the message that the Church has preached throughout history. And since the historic message that the Church has preached throughout history ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be the damnable doctrine, guess where that irresistibly puts preterism? OUTSIDE the true faith, and in the garbage heap of damnable doctrines! By your own words, preterists are damned. Case closed! Thank you for thoroughly obliterating preterism for us, Dave! With enemies like you, who needs friends! LOL!!!!!
Preach it brother! (if anyone knows who this person was, please send them my way, I would love to speak with them)
David responded with (and I will interject my comments):
MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughts. I’m glad that you’ve gotten so much enjoyment from my exchange with Keith Mathison. With your indulgence, I would like to clarify two points.
I think that you and Keith Mathison and I all agree that according to II Tim. 2:17,18, IF futurism is true and the Resurrection has not yet happened since the time that Paul wrote II Tim. 2:17,18, then preterism is indeed — in the words of II Tim. 2:17,18 — “ungodliness,” “gangrene,” a deviation from the Truth, and a Faith-overthrowing doctrine. If the Resurrection of II Tim. 2:17,18 has still not yet happened, then preterists are certainly heretics.
Thank you David! That is ALL I was saying, and it is accurate to what you said.
I think most or all preterists not only have the “guts” to admit this, but do admit it. This is not a new revelation among preterists.
David, you may hope so, but reality doesn’t bear you out. You and John McPherson are the only two that I have ever had candidly admit this conclusion without a song and a dance.
More importantly though, you have missed or ignored the other half of the argument, which is the key point:
Okay it is here that I think David thinks I have misrepresented him because I did not mention the other half of the argument. First David would be incorrect as my original blog on this back at the old preteristlist did in fact mention the second half of the argument, but he would also be incorrect for the second point is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Here is a summary of David’s second argument:
If futurism is true [and David would classify that as every other view], then hyperpreterism is indeed a damnable doctrine; however, the converse is not true. If hyperpreterism is true, then futurism is a serious error, but it is not a damnable doctrine.
So what? What does that have to do with my point or even the point of the anononymous correspondent? Nothing.
However, I will say that David is wrong. If hyperpreterism is true, all other views are indeed damnable doctrines. This is one reason why the hyperpreterist camp NEVER wants me to apostasize to their dark side - I would be brutally blunt and honest about all of the ramifications and expose the dishonest facade of the clamouring for acceptance as “just another acceptable eschatological view.” That is not true. David has admitted it. One thing though is shown by David’s concession (besides that David is honest) is that it exposes the rank hypocrisy of those hyperpreterists who claim to follow the Bible alone as their standard for doctrine for criticizing those who believe that the resurrection of 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is NOT past and thus obey the Bible in condemning such a view. And in praising those “futurists” who extend the hand of Christian fellowship to them when in so doing they are disobeying the Apostle Paul.
If preterism is true, then historic, traditional futurism is not a damnable doctrine. If preterism is true, then the historic, futurist Church still preaches the true Gospel. The error of the futurist Church is not that it has rejected the Gospel. Its error is that it has failed to connect all the right Bible verses to the Gospel that she truly, authoritatively and effectively preaches. As a result of its exegetical displacement, the Church has appended an extra-biblical scheme of future events onto her true Gospel-message. This is not a fatal mistake.
David is wrong, and has a myopic understanding of the Gospel. Paul considered one’s view of the resurrection as part and parcel of the Gospel. To deny the alleged full redemption in AD70 is to deny the work of Christ and to deny that he has in fact conquered the last enemy. Eschatology is NOT merely an “end-times” view, it is the story of redemption, and is at its core Christological, which is why a totally Christological Creed, the Athanasian Creed saw fit to make the future bodily resurrection a point of salvational belief. It is a fundamentalist (in the bad sense) mind that cannot see the connection and anachronistically demands that there must be one verse that says exactly that as if the Bible writers were obligated to spoon-feed what should be obvious in the connections that are made.
From the preterist perspective, traditional futurism is a significant error to be sure. It has ultimate implications which, by the grace of God, the Church soundly rejects, but futurism is by no means a damnable error.
Any view that logically leads to damnable error is damnable error. Now people may be inconsistent and not follow the implications but that does not change the nature of the doctrine itself. Paul spoke about how a denial of the resurrection led to a denial of the resurrection of Christ, yet his audience surely affirmed the resurrection of Christ. To no matter, Paul showed them the outcome of their belief. And he would never tolerate that error in the body even if the adherents were ignorant or inconsistent about the outcome.
If futurism is true, then we are two separate houses and two separate faiths — but not because of any theological necessity, but only because of II Tim. 2:17,18 in a vacuum. This is the exegetical weakness of the case of those who anathematize all preterists.
Now David tries to backpedal as he once tried with Mathison. There is no vacuum - there is raw fact, and it is not only 2 Timothy 2:17-18 that is relied upon but also Paul’s condemnation of the denial of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. Don’t try to foist upon anyone that hyperpreterists do not deny the resurrection unless you are willing to be consistent and state that Mormons do not deny the Trinity.
Thus Keith Mathison’s position:
“I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning.”
This is misleading - David himself spoke of an extra-Biblical witness that cannot be comprised:
“The ancient ecumenical creeds have been deemed by all members of the universal Church — western, eastern, even Roman — throughout history as containing the fundimental rudiments of the true Gospel of salvation…. it means that the creedalists are correct when they say that we may not refute the elemental traditions of the Gospel which are contained in the creeds…We are not free to refute or nullify any of the cardinal elements of the Christian faith.”
Keith Mathison noted:
Now the problem is that throughout the remainder of this section, Mr. Green gives the impression that the whole discussion concerns nothing more than obscure eschatological issues - that nothing of an essential nature is at stake. Obviously he has to do this, or else preterism fails the test he himself set forth at the beginning of the article. But, there is an essential element of the Gospel at stake in the discussion - the doctrine of our resurrection. Paul in I Corinthians 15 tells us that the doctrine of the resurrection, Christ’s and ours, is absolutely fundamental to the gospel. Elsewhere Hymenaeus and Philetus are condemned for their errors concerning the doctrine of our resurrection. The resurrection is not a secondary negotiable doctrine. According to the witness of the New Testament, and according to the witness of the Church in the following centuries, the doctrine of our resurrection is a cardinal element of the Gospel. The Church fought with the Gnostic heretics for years, and a central element of their heresy was a denial of a future flesh and bone resurrection of believers.
In summary, my point is this. I would agree with Mr. Green that we cannot reject the teaching of the creeds on issues which are at the heart of the gospel. But the doctrine of our resurrection is a fundamental Gospel teaching. And most importantly for this response, full-preterism demands a denial of the Church’s historic doctrine of our resurrection. If this is the case, then full-preterism fails the test which Mr. Green outlines in the first section of his article.
and
So to use Mr. Green’s own test, either every branch the historic Church has been preaching a false gospel for over 1900 years (since errors regarding our resurrection are not minor errors), or full-preterism is preaching a false gospel. Since I agree with Mr. Green that it is impossible to say the Church has always and everywhere been preaching a false gospel, I am forced to conclude that preterism is preaching a false gospel. The point is that this is not merely a debate over secondary issues regarding the timing of eschatological events. The changes that full-preterists propose to make to the eschatological sections of the creeds have profound effects upon the soteriological parts of the creeds. Their changes drastically alter the doctrine of our resurrection, and the doctrine of our resurrection is a cardinal non-negotiable element of the Gospel.
And here is Mathison’s comment in context:
I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning. This would be the case if we shared the same creedal presuppositions, the same framework of orthodoxy. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about what the debate is about. The full-preterists are convinced that the debate is a debate among Christians over important but secondary doctrines. I am convinced that preterism necessarily demands a change in a doctrine which is essential to the Gospel. This means that we “creedalists” view this debate as a debate between Christians and heretics. That is why we have been forced to approach it in the same way the early Christians combated early heresies. The Scriptures simply do not belong to heretics, and any use of the Scriptures by heretics is a misuse of Scripture.
And concludes:
Mr. Green seems closer to understanding the problems involved in the debate than most other full-preterists I have read. I really hope that other full-preterists read this article because if they think through the implications of it, they will realize that they have to make a choice between full-preterism and Christianity.
Amen! Even so come Lord Jesus.
Dee,
Still missing the point. (I’ll use your tactic of using this line as you have done on me….and I will offer no prrof as to why you have missed the point…I’ll just say…you have missed the point).
Samuel
Hello Samuel - there is a fundamental difference in the mindset of you and I. I am confident I have addressed it to the extent that it concerns my integrity and that is sufficient for me. And…. I don’t think I can say this in a way that will not be offensive, but know I am not intending to be personally offensive (it is so hard to be blunt to a guy that just gave me a smilie - yes I am really a big marshmallow) - but I have been pretty clear about the burden I have. It is to warn and equip the orthodox. I never have as a goal or a target to convince hyperpreterists. If some do, great. But there are others who do that work - back several years ago I do believe I received my calling to take this one specific tack and that is what I do. So what I am saying is that I didn’t expect you to respond, and as long as I know I have maintained my integrity (I did not misrepresent Green and even went against my normal rule of not providing heretical links so that readers can go see that I have not misquoted or mangled anything) it doesn’t matter to me if hyperpreterists are not satisfied. I felt that the charge (basically one of dishonest use of sources - whether intentional or not) was one that was crucial enough for me to respond to - primarily for my own benefit.
If you feel I have missed the point - so be it. I understand what my ultimate point and goal is, and am in the best position of evaluating my position in light of the source. You know I have not hesitated to concede misrepresentation when it has been pointed out to me and I examine it and agree that the criticism was reasonable. I do not defend my every word at all costs - I get foot-in-mouth-itis as much as everyone, but in this situation I am completely confident and at peace.
Here is a smilie in return
Dee,
So am I. The thing is, while attending the heretical Planet Preterist conference (I was a speaker there), I met several who read posts like yours and your arguments. They further investigate these matters only to find the opposite that you endorse. There is no doubt that we use different methodologies (I start with the axiom “the Bible is the word of God, written”) and adhere to the Chicago Statement on Scripture. I do not begin with history, church or creeds, but, rather, criticize all things by the Supreme Judge. This is the Reformed method. Recently, however, amongst the Reformed (mathison, wilson, et al) this very method has become questioned. What I have seen in the past debates, which is why I have them, is that the so called “heretic” cannot be proven to be a heretic from the pages of the Bible, but from the Bible AND something else…creeds, traditions, appeals to the majority, et al. In the words of Tyler Hicks: “the Scriptures are inherently ambiguous.” Gee, thanks God for giving us a Bible that is inherently ambiguous! It is exactly for this reason that Preterists are first and foremost lovers of the words of God penned in the Bible. This point is a rallying point. Oh sure, you can come on and say, “duh, where’d ya get the table of contents.” But, Reformed theologians defeated that argument nearly 400 years ago. This debate is not really about Preterism at all (since you and I have not really debated any passages of Scripture). It’s about authority and where the ultimate authority resides. It’s the Bible..or the Bible AND something else. Usually the “something else” takes precedent, even though lip service is paid to “sola Scriptura.” Like, “Oh, I believe in the authority of the Bible, but the creeds say….” It is this that is being seen, and it is this that continues to have conferences like PPreterist grow (and grow it has!). It’s really that simple. Beginning with the Bible as an axiom (presuppositionalism) does not mean that every thing the church has produced is to be discarded, but it does mean that everything is constantly to be looked at and reviewed in light of the Scriptures. The Pharisees thought they had it down hook and sinker, and their traditions were true biblically derived traditions held for centuries…then came Jesus and slowly, by appeal to “what the Bible really says” began, slowly, to knock down their house of cards. He didn’t knock down everything, just the faulty traditions that had grown up around the Scriptures. It happens. It’s human. Traditions can easily become “God’s word” to the point that God’s word no longer really needs to be cited: just the long held tradition becomes authority enough to bash other honest seekers of the Scriptures. Then the name calling comes, then the outcasting and villifying, then the denounciation and refusal to have anything to do with these sick heretics. This has happened throughout history…and nothing we have read so far (and I try to stay very open, noting that in possibility there might be a devastating argument against preterism…I just have not read one yet) would convince me that this is not happening again with us. Hey, what can I say, Christianity thrived when they persecuted them in Jerusalem…persecution works…there is no such thing as bad press.
I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning. This would be the case if we shared the same creedal presuppositions, the same framework of orthodoxy. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about what the debate is about.” Mathison here is about as Roman Catholic in methodology as one can get. See, my point stands: orthodoxolytrists cannot argue Scripture alone. It’s the Creeds PLUS Scripture. See the “same FRAMEWORK” must be shared (creeds AND the Bible), meaning that the Bible is NOT ALONE sufficient for “doctrine, reproof, correction.” It’s the creeds AND the Bible that is the authority. Man, can anyone be more blind than this?
Samuel
Samuel -
First an FYI and some general statements. The FYI is that a hyperpreterist posted after you, and I deleted it. Why? I am not going to deal with irrational hissy-fits that claim that anyone who disagrees is a “hater” - I hear enough of that when debating Mormons and homosexual advocates, and this is my space, I pay for it, I work for it, and I am not having that on my blog.
Now the general statements - I know you are a busy man. I am a busy woman. I am not going to have daily blog debates - this is not what this site is for. I have been generous with you (and you as well with me) because we have had some productive discourse etc. But Samuel, I gotta ask that you not make this into a debate forum, and a place to proselytize hyperpreterism. Is it a fine line? Yes, but I am certainly on my site not going to let hereesy go unconfronted, yet I am one person, and don’t have the time to carry on full-out debates here. So my choices may soon be simply to not allow comments.
Now for a few comments:
… I met several who read posts like yours and your arguments. They further investigate these matters only to find the opposite that you endorse…..
Yes, and I have met Arians who claim that that they were Trinitarians and found out the opposite was true. Shall I see who can do best of ten and tell you how many people who’s faith was ravaged by the pernicious heresy that I have dealt with? I have had people who thought that my arguments were wrong and later wrote me to say, wow, you are so right.
Now MISREPRESENTATION ALERT:
There is no doubt that we use different methodologies (I start with the axiom “the Bible is the word of God, written?) and adhere to the Chicago Statement on Scripture. I do not begin with history, church or creeds, but, rather, criticize all things by the Supreme Judge. This is the Reformed method.
Classic myopic fundamentalism. It is absolutely incorrect that you do not use history to back up what you gleaned from the Bible. My argument has always started from the Bible as well, so you have blatantly misrepresented me and Keith.
The next paragraph you go on to criticize people who are not part of this discussion. If you have an issue with Tyler take it up wth him - he gets mentioned here more than in his own home.
And the fire of men of straw continue.
It is exactly for this reason that Preterists are first and foremost lovers of the words of God penned in the Bible.
And so are snake-handlers.
This point is a rallying point. Oh sure, you can come on and say, “duh, where’d ya get the table of contents.? But, Reformed theologians defeated that argument nearly 400 years ago.
Oh you can come and say that Jesus is the Messiah but the rabbis defeated that argument nearly two thousand years ago.
WOW - you are right Samuel, these vacuous assertions ARE fun. You have yet to provide any credible evidence for how YOU can have a table of contents.
This debate is not really about Preterism at all (since you and I have not really debated any passages of Scripture).
And I told you that my work is not geared to those who promote heresy- my points, no matter how much anyone may try to divert me, are towards giving the sheep the warning - others have more than adequately handled the other end.
It’s about authority and where the ultimate authority resides. It’s the Bible..or the Bible AND something else.
This is blatantly false on two counts. First you will slander me if you keep on saying that my ultimate authority is not the Bible. I have corrected you several times - this is the typical hyperpret emotional soundbyte - and it doesn’t work with me. I use history in the same way some of your crowd does (I haven’t read enough of your work to say that you do), though they deny it the minute they want to put on sheep’s clothing. Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura or Nuda Sciptura. You keep subtlety redefing terms, and I do not know if you are from a Church of Christ background, but that is rather typical of some pockets within the Church of Christ.
Usually the “something else? takes precedent, even though lip service is paid to “sola Scriptura.? Like, “Oh, I believe in the authority of the Bible, but the creeds say….? It is this that is being seen, and it is this that continues to have conferences like PPreterist grow (and grow it has!). It’s really that simple. Beginning with the Bible as an axiom (presuppositionalism) does not mean that every thing the church has produced is to be discarded, but it does mean that everything is constantly to be looked at and reviewed in light of the Scriptures.
The Mormons are growing at an incredible rate as is Islam. So you disagree with David Green that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be denied or one is a heretic? Or will you be like the person who is upset at being called a universalist since he makes comments that imply as long as the magic word “Christian” is used we should be generous about our doctrine?
The Pharisees thought they had it down hook and sinker, and their traditions were true biblically derived traditions held for centuries…then came Jesus and slowly, by appeal to “what the Bible really says? began, slowly, to knock down their house of cards.
Ahhh the second hyperpreterist boogeyman. And an oxymoron - something cannot be truly biblically derived AND conflict with the Scriptures. Such is akin to saying that a man has been faithful to his wife, but he has a daily trist with his secretary.
He didn’t knock down everything, just the faulty traditions that had grown up around the Scriptures. It happens. It’s human. Traditions can easily become “God’s word? to the point that God’s word no longer really needs to be cited: just the long held tradition becomes authority enough to bash other honest seekers of the Scriptures.
When are you going to deny that JWs are heretics? Or the former World Wide Church of God or, or, or or
But again the above is a blatant misrepresenation of my position. You really gotta stop doing that. I like you too much to get mad, but I will expose it.
Then the name calling comes, then the outcasting and villifying, then the denounciation and refusal to have anything to do with these sick heretics.
Oh the drama! Paul was so so so so MEAN to call H&P names, and cast them out, and villify them and telling people to ignore their babblings. Samuel that is so hollow. And histrionic. You hold to sick heresy. Only God knows if you are truly a sick heretic. I stick to your doctrines, your person is being handled by someone who knows you way better than I ever could.
I am sorry Samuel, but all I seem to get is wash, rinse, repeat. However, you know that my purpose is not to convince you - it is to prove from the committed position of those who have already decided against your view what their position must BIBLICALLY be to your view. You keep arguing from point A (Is hyperpreterism true?) but I am not dealing with point A. My argument assumes a reader that already has come down against your view and now has to consider point B, which is - okay here is a view I disagree with, how should I view it within the scope of belief.
Christians have to do that all the time. We do not have to prove the Trinity each time we want to show the brethren that JWs hold to heresy. The pastor does not have to prove the existence of God each time he makes a statement that flows from that - he may take a common foundation for granted.
So it may seem odd to those of your view, but my arguments are not primarily directed to you (the plural you) - it is like complaining that a ten-year old doesn’t like The Martha Stewart Show. Ten-year olds are not her target audience, but overly compulsive strange housewives
That is the point you have consistently sidestepped thus you keep arguing for the merits of animation while I am concerned with making Easter bonnets out of soap remnants.
Dee,
Maybe you are right. You have not shown how the Bible is your ultimate authority. You didn’t deal with my comment on Mathison. To me, the ole “see they believe in nuda scriptura” is blatantly false. My position of the Bible is found worded perfectly enough in the Westminster Confession chapter 1.I-X. Huh? Wha? He quotes confessions? I thought he was a nude scripture man! We are speaking way past each other on this point, which is what happened to Tyler (who claimed the same lip service) and Mathison (who gives the same lip service). They say they adhere to the Confession (they both claim to be Reformed), but when asked how, they never respond. Your response has always been, “I ain’t Reformed, Sam.” So, if you really think that 1.I-X represents the Church of Christ (!), then I don’t know what to do. Until then, you have all demonstrated quite plainly Scriptures AND, not Scripture Only. To know my position, Dee, simply google the Westminster, read chapter 1 and voila, there you have it. You can call it “myopic fundamentalism” all that you want (which only shows that you might not have any idea of what you are talking about). Now, after reading 1.I-X, if you still think that that is myopic fundamentalism, then whatever. The Reformed position has been called worse. But don’t misrepresent my view anymore. Can everyone read this? MY VIEW is found in the Westminster Confession 1.I-X. Clear enough?
Samuel Frost
Hello Samuel:
Maybe you are right.
I am always right
You have not shown how the Bible is your ultimate authority.
And that is patently untrue. For the only point I am arguing I used only the Bible to prove it. Boy it is amusing to see the frantic tail-chasing that goes on once you are forced off the “bad bad creedalist” track. It is eerily remniscent of Jehovah’s Witnesses - once you get them off their programmed track, they fall to pieces.
Ultimate means first, foremost, the final arbitrer. You grant yourself that luxury for your own arguments, yet when it comes to opponents, all of a sudden ultimate means only. I challenge you ABSOLUTELY to show any comments I made in context which state or imply that I don’t hold the Bible to be the ultimate authority - you can’t, and you are then bearing false witness. I stated I did, and unless you believe in “guilty until proven innocent” you must have evidence before you imply I am liar. Because I have stated categorically it is, and you deny that it is for me. That is calling me a liar. I do not have seminary degrees or training but I am not a blithering idiot either - so I do not think you can say that I am not lying but rather am just daffy. Do not insult my intelligence.
>>You didn’t deal with my comment on Mathison.>>
Mathison can handle himself. I am sure that there are areas that I would disagree with Mathison, but he isn’t here, and I have no obligation to comment on Tyler, Matthison, or Big Bird.
To me, the ole “see they believe in nuda scriptura? is blatantly false. My position of the Bible is found worded perfectly enough in the Westminster Confession chapter 1.I-X. Huh? Wha? He quotes confessions?
This is so funny. Watch my nuance - above I said you gave YOURSELF the luxury of non-Nuda, but you insist all those who oppose be doctrinally naked. I did not say YOU believed it - I said you hold others to a standard that you fail. You can quote a confession as an accurate summary of your belief (I am taking that as true for the sake of argument) - yet I quote extra-Biblical sources and you claim I do not believe the Bible as my ultimate authority. For some reason this reminds me of a word that starts with H and ends with Y and has YPOCRISY in the middle.
I thought he was a nude scripture man! We are speaking way past each other on this point, which is what happened to Tyler (who claimed the same lip service) and Mathison (who gives the same lip service). They say they adhere to the Confession (they both claim to be Reformed), but when asked how, they never respond. Your response has always been, “I ain’t Reformed, Sam.? So, if you really think that 1.I-X represents the Church of Christ (!), then I don’t know what to do.
I told you Samuel that I am not Reformed and the Church of Christ was merely an observation of the standards you hold others to - certainly not yourself. It is reminiscent of those folks that go, “that thare trinity word ain’t in the bible so I won’t use it”
Until then, you have all demonstrated quite plainly Scriptures AND, not Scripture Only.
You have demonstrated Scipture AND a confession (just holding you to your own standard). Additionally here is what is funny. Let’s say that I believe that my parrots were modern prophets of God and they gave me inspired revelations. HOWEVER, when condemning your view, I do not rely upon a thing squawked by my avian seers, but the Bible. For the purposes of that condemnation the Bible alone was used. And you have just talked out of both sides of your mouth so fast, I am surprised you didn’t get whiplash. The description you gave above was of Nuda Scriptura or Solo Scriptura. The Bible as ULTIMATE does not require the Bible ALONE. It can, but it doesn’t have to. I hold the Creeds the EXACT SAME WAY you hold to a confession, yet apparently your eyes glaze over and you go back to the hyperpreterist mantra.
You can call it “myopic fundamentalism? all that you want (which only shows that you might not have any idea of what you are talking about).
It is the typical Church of Christ, Bob Jones U, Peter Ruckman type of nonsense that you require of others. Apparently you hold yourself to something different. That is worse.
Samuel I have decided how I can control my time and keep my blog from having heresy go opposed until I can get time. I am going to have comments held in “que” until I can respond. This is better than having no comments, while letting me control my time.
Dee,
I will respect your time. You might want to go to the Tota Reformanda site (Hicks’ site) and see his new article and the posts. Underhanded tactics indeed. At least you are more open in your ill-treatment of us.
Sam
Thank you Samuel for respecting my time. When I get a chance I will look at the new article. How do you feel about liberal theology creeping in? You oppose it? Well then you are ill-treating the liberals. I treat your doctrine very badly, because it is pernicious heresy. I have not treated you badly unless you are so identified with your doctrine that you cannot separate out the person. I am more than capable of doing so. The emotional “can’t we all just get along and sing the Smurf song” is a manipulative tactic.
Dee,
It’s only a heresy in your mind. Ask Gary DeMar. Dee, liberal theology creeps in everywhere. What do mean by liberal? Ecumenicism? I am an ecumenicist, and I like N.T. Wright. I am also a Calvinist, but a kinder, gentler one. So, when did “try to live at peace with all men” become reduced to an emotional appeal and smurf song…gee, I thought I was following Paul on that one…
Sam
Now Samuel is recycling his old snippets. You tried that “ask Gary DeMar? way back, and you already got that shot down. Go ask David Green who agreed that coming from my position, I am correct to label your view as heresy. I did not mean by liberal, liberal theology in doctrine, but social liberal when it comes to doctrien– the “oh you intolerant meanine, heretic-burning icky person – let’s have generous orthodoxy (heck the owner of a prominent heretical site wouldn’t even say that the Mormons shouldn’t be accepted as Christians - well then again when one is advocating that this is the consummation, one can’t really be so judgmental of a view that is just as whacky) and who cares if it makes you defy the Bible from your view – we all know that Christianity isn’t about doctrine at all – it is looooove baby, and if you don’t accept my horribly warped doctrine you aren’t acting in love.? Oh sure I am. I am thinking of Christ’s love for the Church to keep it from gross error and apostasy. Wow, so was Paul gentle to H&P? I certainly doubt that being called a spreader of gangrene gave him warm fuzzies.
It is just occurred to me that you argue just like a dispensationalist. You beg the root question in your demands upon others. Ironic.
Hey I know - let’s bring up Calvin even though that has ZERO to do with anything we are talking about. Fun!
Dee,
I think that I have stirred you up enough in here and in other posts. Perhaps we may meet again somewhere else. Thanks for NOT treating me like Paul would have treated Hym. and Phil. Paul would have been far more severe, not just to the doctrine, but to them as well, handing them over to Satan.
Sam
[...] http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41 [...]
“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”
This begs a question?
If Full Preterism is true, would that make Futurism a damnable doctrine?
Will a futurist concede this point or attempt to sweep it under the rug by re-inforcing Futurism?
“Mr. Green seems closer to understanding the problems involved in the debate than most other full-preterists I have read. I really hope that other full-preterists read this article because if they think through the implications of it, they will realize that they have to make a choice between full-preterism and Christianity”
This is where the rubber meets the road for most. You put yourself in a supreme position of authority, condemnation & judgment, pertaining to one’s Salvation. We have to choose between FP & Christianity?
I am a FP, I do believe in Jesus Christ for my Salvation, I do embrace Christianity and I do not have to choose because you decide we must. God is my judge, certainly no man or woman determines my Salvation.
I can not understand why people have to attack when they feel like thwey’re being attacked, when they’re not! But to put rouself in the place and footsteps of God? To make yourself the final authority on anyone’s Salvation? You determine no one’s Salvation, God does alone!
Hello Jerry -
>>If Full Preterism is true, would that make Futurism a damnable doctrine?>>
Yes. I have no toleration for answering a question I clearly stated in the piece. I makes me believe that you were riding your hobby horse along and decided to soapbox for your heresy. Since you commented while only skimming, here is what I said in the post:
Happily, that answers your other rant. Are you a universalist?
Am I a Universalist? You looking for more ammunition? No, I’m not! Never have been!
No other rant was answered, LOL. YOU define Full Preterists as Non-Christians! Have fun in your paper doll world.
As alluded to earlier, I don’t provide ammunition. No need, anyone can turn & twist anyone’s word. Your doctrine is my heresy and vice versa, all over the world. I don’t make it a Salvation issue, you choose to! Have at it.
Jerry Wm Bowers Jr
You assume too much. So I guess then you think JWs and Mormons are Christians?
I feel bad for you. It is hard to kick against the goads of 2000 years of eschatology. It also takes a pretty inflated sense of one’s abilities.
D D:
I can appreciate your zeal in getting out what you believe to be the truth and I won’t condemn you for not believing my Eschatology. I can not stipulate enough; Eschatology is secondary to Salvation IMHO My purpose even in responding to your posts is not to attack or condemn you for whatever your beliefs may be, so long as you claim Christ and you say that you do.
What I’m proposing is the right hand of fellowship and nothing more. Existing solely to attack, ridicule, judge, criticize, condemn, critique and attempt to destroy people and or personalities? It is a closed mind that goes after people & personalities; the open mind looks to the ideals & beliefs. We can discuss DOGMA anytime, it shouldn’t have to come with condemnation.
You made a statement in your latest response to me “It also takes a pretty inflated sense of one’s abilities”
You bet it does! I can do all things through HIM that strengthens me! I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. We’re both claiming Christ as the center & source of our Salvation. “A gentle hand turneth away wrath”
God Bless
You didn’t answer my question but instead offered another rabbit trail.
Actually: I did answer your question several times. I do not need to provide you with ammunition. #1) Your mind is already made up. #2) My beliefs are widely covered on various internet sources. You may even notice some progression in my various beliefs. #3) Anyone can type anything on a keyboard today and have it produced for & to the public. Say what you will & wish about me.
I’ve offered an olive branch of peace; you choose to remain sarcastic.
God Bless
So I guess then you think JWs and Mormons are Christians?
Where did you answer that?
YOU came to MY blog. You can’t scurry away when specific questions are asked. And if stating your beliefs is so to be feared, I wonder why you hold them.
As is yours. So what? Very lame tactic indeed.
You came to my blog. I am under no obligation to traipse around the Internet researching you. All you have done here is make cuddly assertions with absolutely no backing. Since you have come here to challenge me with just your ipse dixit, I am singularly unimpressed and unconvinced. You didn’t even read the blog post you are responding to. However, I will, though I have no obligation to do so since you barged in to promote your particular agenda without even bothering to research the specific Biblical reasons I have to warrant condemnation of your heresy, give you some resources on my position. And yes, I absolutely refuse any “Christian” fellowship (and if you are in an orthodox church, you should be excommunicated if you refuse to repent). You have denied the historic faith. Have the backbone to face the facts.
Here are the resources:
http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengrave.html
Here is a whole page of various articles
http://www.preteristsite.com/deedeewarren.html
and lo and behold, I have a podcast
http://www.preteristpodcast.com
And please spare me your hurt puppy routine… if “rabbit trail” is sarcastic to you, I fear for the safety of your tender feelings as you wander into the big bad world where they might say such things as “avoiding the point” and horror of all horrors “red herring“!!!!!! Oh the humanity!
There is no olive branch with heresy. It is vile to even suggest so. The fact that you think that is something commendable shows me that you have little comprehension of the depth of your heterodoxy.
May God rescue you from the pit.
“And please with your hurt puppy routine… if “rabbit trail” is sarcastic to you, I fear for the safety of your tender feelings as you wander into the big bad world where they might say such things as “avoiding the point.”
Hurt puppy dog routine? If you have perceived me as hurt, wounded or grevious over your comments & assertions; who’s the one with the inflated ego now?
“You can’t scurry away when specific questions are asked”
Actually, I can disappear into the night as far as you are concerned.
“And if stating your beliefs is so to be feared, I wonder why you hold them ”
Where exactly did I mention my beliefs are to be feared”?
The more bait you lay out, the more rabbit trails I’ll leave behind.
LOL
I have enjoyed this little exchange but I see it is important for you to have the last word/laugh. So be it!
God Bless you DD
Are we allowed to ask questions here??? I am trying to understand a few things and how I can give a reasonable scriptural answer to some serious things he is saying against a physical resurrection.
Jerry’s recent post is one of the most puerile works I have ever seen. If he actually took the time to read arguments by those who understand physical resurrection, he might understand the meaning of the “flesh” and “spirit” dichotomy, and the transformation of the physical. But since he is a pronounced heretic and locked into his heathen dualism, he is better left ignored and not debated, in the biblical fashion. I will reserve comments on such objections to resurrection for one who actually wishes to genuinely know.
Jerry proselytize your heresy elsewhere. You know better. I have removed your post.
James, write me at preteristblog@gmail.com.
And yay! I am doing this all from my iPhone
Sorry, for the delay. For some reason responses to my post were sent to my spam mail. Dee I will write you directly regarding some of my questions. Just need to switch my computers default email to the the one I use. Thanks for all your hard exegetical work. And Jerry, no matter how hard you try to use scriptural proof text to support your heretical view regarding physical resurrection of the DEAD. The dead those who have been separated from the body, the biblical text when rightly divided just will not allow you to do this. I pray that God will illuminate you mind to the clear teaching of scripture and thus reflected in the creeds. Time to come home.