There are many doctrines and ideas over which we can amicably agree to disagree. Sometimes we even disagree over which ones we can disagree on. For example, there are some extremist Calvinists and nonCalvinists who deny fellowship and Christian belief to the others. I am not one of those. In fact in many matters of theological freedom, while strongly disagreeing, I am downright liberal (and I mean that in the sense of freedom in Christ, not socially or theologically liberal). However, there are some doctrines over which division is mandatory and commanded by Scripture. Specifically, today, I repeat my long-standing position, there absolutely cannot be any fellowship of Christian faith between “full preterists��? and those who hold to an orthodox eschatology. There is no choice but division.
Paul dealt with a false (he called it gangrenous) teaching that the resurrection was past. Modern “full preterists��? teach that the resurrection is past. If someone holds the position that IT IS NOT past, then said person MUST divide from those who say it is. Paul’s condemnation applies.
I want to dispose of the silly argument that is sometimes lobbed at me that states that I must by necessity hold that when the resurrection does happen then we will all be heretics. I will quote specifically from a “full preterist��? advocate who advanced this piece of illogic:
Then maybe you have a leg to stand on concerning Paul’s condemnation because, when the resurrection occurs a million years from now, the very next day someone else like you will use Paul’s words to condemn those who believe in a past resurrection. Wouldn’t that be a picture to see?
Do you really think that is a good argument? Again this is a shockingly low context reading - and fails in your own view as it is utterly reversible. Taking your position as true for the sake of argument, if you lived pre70 you would join Paul in the condemnation. Would the happening of the 70 event then make your earlier condemnation false? No. Because obviously the necessary requirement in Paul’s condemnation is “they say that the resurrection is past [when it isn't]” and equally obvious is that once it happens, such no longer applies. That is true in any view. However, once again, taking as true for the sake of argument the presupposition that the resurrection has NOT happened, the condemnation easily applies and sticks.
David Green in discourse with Keith Matthison candidly admitted (warning - link is to a heretical site but I wanted to give the source for my quote):
“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”
David conceded this point not on the basis of the condemnation of Hymenaeus, but on the basis of the fact that two views have radically different and opposing views, ultimately, of the Gospel itself. I give great credit to David for this candor. However, this candor is rare in my experience. The major PR push of the heretical preterist movement is that it is simply another valid Christian view to be granted a place at the eschatological table alongside the others. This is not true. I assert that it is theologically dishonest.
As Keith Mathison said:
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.