Duplicitous isn’t the only word that starts with “D”
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Paul on 17-09-2011
Print This Post
Folks, you just have to love Duncan McKenzie who plows the internet shamelessly peddling his books on the unsuspecting and ignorant. However, that isn’t the real issue with Mr. McKenzie. The real issue Mr. McKenzie has is as Gary DeMar aptly described another member of their community he is a “one trick” pony. Mr. McKenzie has never taken the time to properly exegete those passages which describe explicitly the hope of Christianity yet still freely offers up his views on eschatology. In so doing he attacks the views of men well rounded in not only exegesis, but the theological implications of the rendering of that exegesis. Mr. McKenzie is torn between two versions of a Christian view redefined along pagan lines as he self attests below,
I see a lot of people get into very intense debates on the nature of the resurrection. I tend to stay out of these debates for the simple reason that I am not sure. I tend to lean toward the IBD concept of the resurrection, although I also see corporate aspects taught as well. While I am not sure on the exact nature of the resurrection, I feel much more sure on the timing of the resurrection.
The “IBD” concept is transmigration of the soul also known as reincarnation. The “corporate” aspect is disembodied bliss. Dr. Roger Olson Professor of Theology at Baylor’s seminary has documented both views are derived from pagan origins and typically advocated by lay people unskilled in the basics of Biblical matters which results in the adoption of pagan views. Dr. Olson points out of guys like Mr. McKenzie, “Christians have always believed (except where they forget their common faith) that the body participates in redemption and future eternal life.” (The Mosaic of Christian Belief, Roger E. Olson, IVP, pg 309)
Mr. McKenzie isn’t sure what Paul meant when he clearly explained, “the Lord Jesus Christ,…will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” Phil 3:20, 21, and therefore leans between two views which originate from paganism yet suggests scholars like Dr. Kenneth Gentry and Dr. Keith Mathison are confused. What’s surprising is that after making an admission like that above the untutored and unskilled Mr. McKenzie has the gall to cast aspersions against the work of scholars. Mr. McKenzie who doesn’t have the ability to exegetically determine what the promise of resurrection entails has the audacity to complain,
Gentry is saying that Paul is talking about a future final advent in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, but a mere three verses later switches to the AD 70 coming in 2 Thessalonians 2:1! Gentry is forced into this far-fetched position because 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 is talking about the judgment (which Gentry says is still future) while 2:1 is talking about the AD 70 gathering of God’s people (cf. Matthew 24:29-34, which Gentry correctly believes is AD 70). http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?68579-Shamrock185-Makes-a-Good-Point&p=2068893&viewfull=1#post2068893
Folks, I think this is the epitome of what Dr. Roger Olson explains about those who advocate a paganized version of a Christian claim. Clearly McKenzie is one of those “untutored lay” people “biblically semi-literate”. Mr. Mckenzie eschews grammatical/historical principles of interpretation turning the Bible in to his own private playground. Demonstrating just how untutored he is Mr. McKenzie will quote G.K.Beale but fail to explain to his readers Dr. Beale’s assessment of Mr. Mckenzie’s redefinition of that concept he is “torn” over. Dr. Beale explains,
…some years ago I was invited to a meeting of theologians in order to discuss a teaching that was spreading (and continues to spread) among a number of churches, namely, that there will not be a final, general bodily resurrection of Christians at the end of the age and that Christ’s second coming and the resurrection of saints already happened in some figurative and invisible manner in A.D. 70. It was the same false teaching as was propounded in Corinth, Ephesus and elsewhere in the first century. (1-2 Thessalonians, G.K. Beale, IVP, pg 201, 202)
In the case above wherein Mr. McKenzie asserts Dr. Gentry’s position is “far-fetched” rather than dealing with Dr. Gentry’s argument Mr. McKenzie bases his claim on the locale of concepts although Paul clearly transitions in the text which separates the two passages. Mr. McKenzie asserts his point without dealing with the argument of Dr. Gentry which is based on four explicit points. Why, it is likely because if Mr. McKenzie actually dealt with the argument he would have to employ skills he frankly doesn’t have.
Mr. McKenzie won’t be exactly honest about the position of the authors he quotes yet implies Dr. Gentry isn’t being honest. Mr. McKenzie explained,
Gentry maintains that the first coming (2 Thess. 1:7-10) is a reference to the future Second Advent and the next (2 Thess. 2:1) is to an AD 70 metaphorical coming. It makes little sense that Paul is talking about two different comings in the same breath. Note the gathering in 2 Thessalonians 2:1; it is speaking of the same event as the rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (although Gentry would say the rapture is the end of time, but the gathering is AD 70. I am reminded of the famous Ronald Regan line “Well, there you go again”). If Paul is talking about two different gatherings/raptures at two different comings he did not make himself clear. (See volume I, pages 371-384. for my discussion of the gathering/rapture.) The confusion of the supposed two different comings is multiplied by the fact that partial preterists do not always agree as to which refers to the AD 70 coming and which refers to a supposed future Second Advent.
Allow me to point out Mr. McKenize begs the question never explaining why the event’s Dr. Gentry understands as unrelated are related. Mr. McKenzie, the untutored lay person who is incapable of providing exegesis of the text to determine what the promise of resurrection entails explains Dr. Gentry’s argument kindles thoughts of Ronald Regan’s famous line, “Well, there you go again” issued when he caught Jimmy Carter misrepresenting the facts. Yet, Mr. McKenzie never addresses Dr. Gentry’s exegesis of the text or his argument. Hey, it’s ok to disagree but don’t imply the man is lying when you don’t have the ability to explain why his argument is wrong. Frankly, in this case Mr. McKenzie is playing the role of Mr. Carter.
Mr. McKenzie inexplicably writes, “If Paul is talking about two different gatherings/raptures at two different comings he did not make himself clear”, yet never offers any support from his comment suggesting “gathering” means “rapture”. Mr. McKenzie, who admittedly doesn’t understand what resurrection entails seemingly builds his entire argument on the assumption “gathering” equates to “rapture”, simply amazing. Gee, I wonder if those in Hebrews 10:25 were neglecting to “rapture” together. Perhaps this argument is just too nuanced for Mr. McKenzie.
Furthermore, Mr. McKenzie never explains why 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 should be understood as the event explained as the Day of the Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2:1. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 is without question, (unless you hold a Gnostic-like view of reality), dealing with dead people coming back to life and those living transformed, while that concept is completely missing in 2 Thessalonians 2. However, what is dealt with in 2 Thessalonians 2 is a judgment, which just happens to be missing in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. Odd, McKenzie would find two entirely different subject matters as unclear evidence that the text is addressing two different events. Like I said, duplicitous isn’t the only word that starts with “D”.
Oh yeah, I forgot the term “gather” which McKenzie implies means “rapture”, (“there you go again”), is found in both passages. I guess the concept of “meeting” necessarily means wherever that term is found it is dealing with the second appearance of Jesus Christ. “Meet” now means bring back to life a formerly dead body or the transformation of a living mortal body to immortal, go figure. The fact is, Mr. McKenzie demonstrates for all to see his “unsophisticated” manner in dealing with the inspired text.
However, I think it is ironic that Mr. McKenzie would claim, “I feel much more sure on the timing of the resurrection.” McKenzie’s grounds? Oh yeah, gather i.e. “meet” means “rapture” although he has provided no supporting evidence. I just have to wonder if that wasn’t what Hymaneus and Philtus claimed as well. N.T. Wright who unlike Mr. McKenzie is a tutored scholar has this to say about Paul’s opponents noted in 1 Corinthians 15,
“Even if they believed, like the two teachers mentioned in 2 Timothy 2.17-18, that ‘the resurrection’ as a whole had already occurred, in other words, that ‘the resurrection’ referred to some kind of spiritual experience or event, they would still be denying that there would be a bodily resurrection. (The proto-gnostic belief is thus shown up already as what it really was and is, namely a form of paganism rather than from Judaism.) (Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg 316)
Based on what Dr. Olson explains, Mr. McKenzie is an “unsophisticated and biblically semiliterate lay” person who has left, that is if he ever was a part of, the common faith because based on his own admission he doesn’t have the capability to exegete the text and understand why, “biblical scholars and theologians have emphasized the bodily resurrection as the blessed hope of believers in Christ.” Perhaps if McKenzie wasn’t such a one trick pony he would understand the basis for views of men like Dr. Gentry and Dr. Mathison. However, it is likely that will never happen as it would no doubt hurt his book sales.
I’m new to preterism and unsure whether partial, full or something else is correct, but in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 it sounds as though Paul is saying that he and those he is addressing, or atleast a portion of them, will be alive when those things take place. “we which are alive and remain”.
Paul must have got that one wrong, eh?
Looks that way Paul
Have you considered the possibility that there was a (bodily) first resurrection of the righteous in 70 A.D. (Christ the firstfruits) who judgment is given to and who live and reign as priests of God and Christ while we are now in the millennium period (Revelation 20:4-5).
At the end of the millennium there is a second bodily resurrection of all the rest of the dead, who will be separated the sheep from the goats and the firstfruits will take part in judging which of these are written in the book of life?
James,
Thank you for your question. In my humble opinion I don’t think Rev 20:4-5 is dealing with the resurrection of the dead, but is using resurrection language to portray a timeless truth which, for the believer, “is to be absent from the body means to be present with the Lord”, (2 Cor. 5:8) With that, Paul’s explanation as to the order of the resurrection would seem to preclude your thought.
I think Milton Terry suggested 1 Cor 15 allows for multiple stages of the resurrection of the dead. However, I don’t think that can reasonably be argued. It sounds to me like Paul believed the resurrection of the dead was limited to two phases, Christ, and then those that are His at His return appearance.
As I recall Dr. Terry’s explanation was not very convincing. Dr. Fee explains, “ As with the preceding “epeita”, is defined by the two “eita” clauses that follow. Since these say nothing whatsoever of resurrection, but only of what transpires at the end, it is pure presumption to read into this text a third resurrection, but only of what transpires at the end, it is pure presumption to read into the text a third resurrection.” (NIC, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon B Fee, Eerdmans, pg. 753) The “epeita” is my attempt at a transliteration of the Greek term found in the footnote on page 753. Dr. Theislton explains, “That Christ has been raised (perfect, 15:4, 12, 14,16,17, 20), whereas those in Christ will be raised (future, 15:22, 49,51, 52, 54). “Epeita” indicates a firmly marked sequence: then or afterward…”(NIGTC, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Anthony Thiselton, Eerdmans, pg. 1229) Again, the “epetia” is my transliteration of the Greek term.
Anyway, it doesn’t appear as though there is any basis in the text to support the idea of multiple resurrections. Christ, then those that are His at His appearance which, interestingly enough occurs at the “end” when all His enemies have been destroyed. Given the didactic text of 1 Cor. 15 is dealing explicitly with the subject of the resurrection of the dead and is couched in didactic language unlike the apocalyptic texts of Revelation, it would seem prudent on our part to defer to Paul’s clear teaching on the matter.
God Bless,
James,
The only resurrection of the righteous is in Matthew 27:52-53.
And they were “seen” by many.
Two works post 70 CE attest to this:
The Gospel of Nicodemus, Vol 8, Chapter I: Then Rabbi Addas and Rabbi Finees, and Rabbi Egias, the three men who had come from Galilee, testifying that they had seen Jesus taken up into heaven, rose up in the midst of the multitude of the chiefs of the Jews, and said before the priests and the Levites, who had been called together to the council of the Lord: “When we were coming from Galilee we met at the Jordan a very great multitude of men, fathers who had been some time dead”…And they went, and walked around all the region of the Jordan and of the mountains, and they were coming back without finding them. And, behold, suddenly there appeared coming down from Mount Amalech a very great number, as it were, twelve thousand men, who had risen with the Lord. And though they recognized very many there, they were not able to say anything to them for fear and the angelic vision; and they stood at a distance gazing and hearing them, how they walked along singing praises, and saying; “The Lord has risen again from the dead, as He has said; let us all exult and be glad, since He reins for ever. Then those who had been sent were astonished and fell to the ground for fear, and received the answer from them, that they should see Karinus and Leucius in their own houses. And they rose up and went to their houses, and found them spending their time in prayer.
Concerning the King of Edessa, Vol 8, Page 653: “He humbled and emptied and abased Himself, and was crucified, and descended to Hades and broke through the enclosure which had never been broken through before, and raised up the dead, and descended alone, and ascended with a great multitude to His Father”.
This did not occur in 70 CE. Nothing of the sort was “seen” by anyone, so therefore, it didn’t happen.
Here’s the thing, that I keep pressing folks like Dave Green and his followers over at Pret Cosmos, the FACTS are that the church, the remaining apostles like John and Bartholomew, didn’t teach that the 2nd coming had just occurred in 70 CE. There is not one hint or lick of historical evidence that supports His coming in 70 CE. We have the seven epistles of St. Ignatius (Bishop of Antioch). We have at least one epistle of St. Clement. We have the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. We have copius writings from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus discussing the 70 CE churches and people down to their own time. We have Polycarp, a student of St. John. We have fragments from Papias attesting to Batholomew’s evangelizing in India after 70 CE. We have the unbroken line of successive bishops at Rome (Clement - Paul’s appointee - another historical fact) from the apostles to Eusebius - who believed that the fall of Jerusalem was part of the 1st Advent. These people and their churches were all of apostolic origin, yet they never experienced or recognized the second coming, and continued hoping for it and dying for it for centuries on end. The event failed them. No one anywhere claimed the event took place, yet they all desperately hoped for it and died for it.
There are secular histories about the Christians of the 70-150 CE generation. For example, the letters of Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia 111-113 CE) to Emperor Trajan make it clear that one of the “offenses” of the christians for which they were being persecuted included the practice of the Lord’s Supper. As most preterists claim, the Lord’s Supper was a practice of eager anticipation of the Lord’s return.
Did I also forget to mention Polycarp’s epistle to the Philipians after the apostles had all died? There is clear evidence that the Philipians were eagerly awaiting the Lord’s return beyond the death of the apostles. And don’t forget that Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. These were people from biblical, apostolically founded churches, headed by the apostles themselved.
Polycarp, Ignatius, and the churches they oversaw — these people were there. They had known apostles and their immediate disciples that outlived them. They knew nothing of a fulfilled Parousia, but were eagerly awaiting it. You see, it is full preterism that is caught dead in error when it attests the secret 2nd coming. By that admission alone, they are outright claiming that Jesus and the apostles themselves, misled their flock as to the nature of the second coming, and the resurrection of the dead.
Because the promised Paraclete, the very Spirit of God, the supreme teacher, will guide and tell us WHAT IS YET TO COME. That is PROMISE of Christ to His church.
Along comes full-preterism to tell us that the supreme teacher has been inept in His job for 2000 years, or that Christ was lying in the first place in the promise to send Him TO teach, or that the instruction on His coming and raising of the dead was only for full preterists to “get.”
I find it insulting to my intelligence and judgment and an insult to God himself personally, even though I have many friends that still hold to the full preterist paradigm, obviously in error and UN-interested in the historical claims of the early church.
It is not that the Holy Spirit has not corrected the church in the past (e.g. Abelard & Anselm), it’s just that that correction has never come in vacuum like full preterism tries to teach, piecemeal early church father quotes that HAVE NOTHING to DO WITH A 70 CE second coming of Christ. Joeseph Smith and the Mormons claim is from such a vacuum. They can’t go back to the fathers and say, “See, they believed it, too!” Why some believe that full-preterism is exempt from the same scrutiny, is beyond me, especially since many of them fully understood 70 CE as Christ’s days of vengence on Jerusalem. Full-preterism is intellectually and spiritually bankrupt on multiple levels. If one carefully analyzes their argument, the common theme is that orthodox Christianity is stupid and they are wise…much like the Mormon’s claim or any other cult that the hardness of men’s hearts has kept humanity from ‘their’ WAY.
“But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.”
I think the Holy Spirit is still on the job, don’t you?
If you were, and I am not saying you are, a consistent full preterist, then the holy spirit is done working. He finished His work in 70 CE. We are left on our own to perish in the dust of the earth, and everyone else is….in heaven.
Blessings to you.
Ken
Amen Ken. The history of the church does not affirm the hyper-preterist view. That, in itself, should cause alarms to go off for anyone thinking about plunging into the view. It is rather arrogant to believe that it wasn’t until now, 2,000 plus years after the fact, that suddenly the real “truth” of the matter has been discovered. Has everyone in the past been so stupid they missed all the events the HP’s claim (not to mention the time statements)? Or, is there something else going on that mitigates against the HP view? That is the question which should be asked by those who hold to the heterodox view of hyper-preterism.
And it is those questions, and the Biblical answers, which have shown time and again why hyper-preterism is not true. Such as the continuing incarnation of Christ - for one major example. If Jesus Christ does not still retain His human body, then humankind is now definitely lost. The hyper-preterist should embrace the logical conclusions of their view and join up with those hyper-hyper-preterists who say it is truly completely done.
Great post Ken. I appreciate it. :o)
Ken,
I see where you’ve been placed on “Exegesis Moderation.” Oh, the irony.
LOL!
God Bless,
Paul,
LOL. I said: Whatever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg
Sharon,
You are absolutely right. I am glad you appreciated it.
God bless you both.
Ken,
Dave chases off from his list anyone that makes too much sense. The reality is, he twisted your words into a pretzel in order to boot you, but that seems to be the way it goes with Dave Green.
You put up the ole “college try” though! :o)
Sharon,
Yes. Dave lives in a river of deceit. And his followers, as well as the trusty errand boy scargy occasional chime ins, all follow suit with their applause. Denial. I see ‘em all the time in inner city meetings. Booze or FP, it’s all the same, an addiction. Just go on facebook and watch the fp debates, it’s like a party where everyone’s talking, but no one is listening. As Paul pointed out, the irony is thick in there, anywhere for that matter, that they ask us to deal with the text, yet at the same time, that is what we have been asking them all along. Deal with the text. Their answer is read into it, and complete foreign to antiquity. Confoundedly eisegetical.
Oh that’s right, the body raised is some ethereal, entity called the covenant body of Christ. Blah! Gnosticism. Same old tune. Different year. Get a grip. They will never lay their claim in the Christian church. Off to “outer circle” where JW and Mormons are, see if they can claim a spot on their own out there. No worries, I have many friends from other religions. Maybe things would be more peaceful if they just accepted their place in the world as a faith apart from Christianity.
Ken
Dorothy, at PretCosmos, wrote:
Hello Dorothy,
Ken didn’t blaspheme. The problem is, Dave Green quoted Ken out of context and then asserted something Ken never meant. Ken affirmed this so why should I jump on Ken about something he didn’t do? Did he write those word Dave quote? Yes! Did he mean what Dave presented them to mean? NO.
Quoting someone out of context, then claiming they meant something other than what was the clear meaning, is deceitful.
Here, I’ll show you an example.
You wrote,
I agree! Dave does live “in a river of deceit.” I’m sure Ken will be thrilled to learn you agree with him. Awesome news!
Of course, the next step is to deny, deny, deny that you DIDN’T mean my interpretation of what you said. I mean, why should I? I have YOUR VERY OWN WORDS (not shouting, just emphasis) proving it! It’s that cut and dried.
Course, you didn’t mean what I presented above because I took it out of context and left off the rest of the paragraph you wrote. It is a misrepresentation of what you meant.
Hopefully you will start to look at what Dave Green’s write with a more discerning eye.
Dorothy wrote:
I don’t understand how Dorothy thinks her accusation’s against me concerning my paper has anything to do with Dave Green misrepresenting Ken. Diversion tactic maybe? And I see some folks over there are confused about what I was backing up Ken on. News Flash: I was backing up Ken about the twist-fest Dave Green wrote, claiming Ken was blaspheming God.
As for my editing my paper; for awhile now I’ve had both paragraphs (the edited version and the original version) posted with the following:
And Dorothy, in our conversation back in the fall of 2010, I never admitted to changing the article 4 times. That was your pal/mentor/leader Dave Green’s twist factor coming into play. You know what my beef was and it wasn’t about me changing that one paragraph back and forth a couple times. It was how you misrepresented it on PretCosmos, as if there was more involved than one paragraph.
Sharon,
It’s like language. You hear it enough, you learn it. Dave twists people’s words repetitively. I have pointed this out to him at least a dozen times since I have been posting there (which has been relatively short). He now has his own language, and his friends, unfortunately, believe it. What Dave Green does is cultic, and there is a definite personality disorder going on. Maybe its because the only influential exegete of the group left the view? The other three are practically shunned by the full preterist community, at least the ones that I keep close contact with.
Why are they shunned? Well, Ed Hassert said it best:
“preterism has, in the past ten years I have been one, turned me from a loving, caring pastor, into an outright ass.”
I think the only two worth talking to there are Michael Bennett and Robin - at least they are honest and respectful. Michael Bennett has his moments, but don’t we all? The other guys just shoot from the hip. I feel sorry for them, because in the end, it does make them look like outright……..