The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

This was originally posted July 2006 but the information is so darned freakishly awesome, I had to repost. It took me forever to add the new tags to this post.

Continuing in The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright:

Page 301

It is important to spell out the logic of what he [Paul] is saying, because in 2 Corinthians all this is controversial.  (a) He believes, as a good Pharisaic Jew, that the creator God raises the dead, in the normal sense.  (b) He believes this all the more strongly because he believes that God has arty done in the case of Jesus.  (c) He believes that he is living between Jesus’ resurrection and his own future resurrection.  (d) He therefore claims, and discovers in practice, that God’s power to raise the dead is at work in the present time, one of its results of being that God can and sometimes does rescue his people from what had seemed imminent and certain death.  This is inaugurated eschatology and the service of urgent pastoral need.

Page 314

Anything other than some kind of bodily resurrection, therefore, is simply unthinkable, not only at the level of meaning of individual verses and phrases but at the level of the chapter’s argument as a whole.  ‘Resurrection’ does not refer to some part or aspect of the human being not dying but instead going on into a continuing life in a new mode; it refers to something that does die and it is then given a new life.  This distinction, so often ignored and both popular and scholarly treatments of the topic, and of this chapter, is vital.

The overall structure and logic of the chapter thus confirms what we would have guessed from the direction in which the rest of the letter points: that this is intended by Paul is a long argument in favor of the future bodily resurrection…. There was, in any case, no indication in Judaism either before or after Paul that ‘resurrection’ could mean anything other than ‘bodily’; if Paul was going to argue for something so oxymoronic as a ‘non–bodily resurrection’ he would have done better not to structure his argument such a way as to give the appearance of articulating a Pharisaic, indeed biblical, worldview in which the goodness of the present creation is reaffirmed in the age to come.  Since that is the kind of argument he has composed, at the conclusion of a letter which constantly points this way, no question should remain.  When Paul said ‘resurrection’, he meant ‘bodily resurrection’.

Read the rest of this entry »

In our Precious Moments version of Christianity we tend to think that we should all just agree to disagree and never, ever condemn a view if the person claims to be “Christian” and especially if they seem “kosher” and believe all the “right” things on other things such as inerrancy, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. But is that Biblical? A lot of the times, the answer is actually yes (minus our political litmus tests) - while many views may be in error, the H word is something that places someone outside the faith (in its strictest use).

This article was pointed out to me apparently because Paul’s condemnation of Hymenaeus isn’t mentioned - that is a glaring oversight on Blomberg’s part, because if Paul went anything when confronted with the teaching that the “resurrection is past,” it is ballistic. He called it a faith-wrecking gangrene.

Now, interesting, though, Blomberg states with regards to 1 Corinthians 15 that “and some disbelieve the bodily resurrection of Christ…” Now that is interesting - because Paul doesn’t explicitly say that, but that is the logical outflow of the teaching that he is contradicting, that there is no bodily resurrection of believers. Now of course those who deny that Paul taught a bodily resurrection of believers (which makes his argument nonsensical), but the fact is that IF he did, Paul here as well is making an issue of foundational significance. To deny the bodily resurrection of believers is to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. Blomberg is right, he just skipped a few steps on the way to the conclusion.

Errors on the resurrection are serious. Heretically so.

Originally posted March 24, 2005

I recently posted an extraordinarily helpful article by Gary DeMar Limited Geography and Biblical Interpretation . If you haven’t read it, do so now (after I fix my html error in the title). If you have but it was more than a day ago, do it again now.

However, like Mary, no matter how much I like a work, I usually find something on which to be contrary. Gary and I have “spoken” (email) multiple times over the years, and he knows (as I personally told both him and Mr. Barker) I vehemently oppose his lackadaisical attitude towards the hyper-preterist heresy, which unfortunately I think will cost him credibility in the end with his other passions (law, government, worldview). As more prominent persons in the evangelical world become educated about this growing cancer, the more they will distance themselves from any perception of acceptance or laxity in that regard. The hyperpreterists milk his silence (and implicit consent) like a milkmaid with a crack addiction [1], and yet when it suits them, they deny he is any kind of preterist at all, but rather a futurist (Samuel Frost did just that IIRC).

I am not the first to note this. In fact Dan Trotter, much more boldly than I, said,

I am still addressing all orthodox Christians who believe the resurrection to be at the end of time. If it is true that the resurrection is at the end of time, then Hymenaeus and Philetus were wrong when they said the resurrection had already taken place. But, then, so are the neo-hymenaeans wrong when they say the resurrection has already taken place, because the resurrection hasn’t taken place. And the neo-hymenaeans are wrong IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT THE ORIGINAL HYMENAEANS ARE WRONG!!!!! So, my question is this. Why in the world do you insist on giving the hyperpreterists a free pass? Why don’t you consider their doctrine in the same light that Paul considered the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus? Paul certainly contended for the truth. Will you? Are you listening, Gary DeMar?

Some may flinch and can’t believe that I would be bold enough to write on this. Why not? Gary is a writer I highly respect, and I would hope he would keep his theological ducks squeaky clean and not be marred by his heretical associations. There is a great ambiguity in the preterist community at large at exactly what Gary’s stance is and that will only harm his ministry in the long-run, and he does much good outside of eschatology issues, specifically in the issues of politics, worldview, and ethics.

So back to my original rant. As I said, that article is excellent. So much so that I typed it in myself since it was only in print in Biblical Worldview Magazine. However as I have been saying in my blogs, we preterists (the legitimate ones, not the heretical usurpers) have grown stagnant and rigid in our zeal to oppose those who are “fluxable” and loose (certain kinds of dispensational futurism). For example, Gary quotes:

Stuart rightly emphasize that ‘the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken.’ We must first determine what a text meant ‘in their town’ before we can determine what it means and how we should apply that meaning to our own time and culture.”

I agree absolutely, however, there is a tendency amongst us to declare that the ONLY meaning or application is the hometown one. That is that if there is a time or contextual delimiter, that’s all folks, Elvis has left the building, put a fork in it, it’s done. IOW it is hyper-literalism in reverse. It is as impliable as week old bread, and in that, the blame for the numbers of those who have descended into the Hymenean pit can fall in great measure upon us.

For instance, Gary and I and others would argue that the “this generation” time limitation places the Olivet Discourse (at least up to Matthew 24:33) squarely in the first century. True. But does a time limitation make it necessarily ONLY in the first century? The answer should be a resounding no, but unfortunately it isn’t, and I in the past was guilty of such myself. There is a time limiter on the “virgin birth” prophecy. If we were to practice consistently what we do with “this generation,” that would leave us in a bit of a nasty pickle. The NT writers did not exegete that way - they applied all kinds of verses that were referring to times long past and applied it to their day. It is in fact the very flexible methodology of the NT that fuels that rhetoric of anti-missionaries like Tovia Singer, the founder of Jews for Judaism. Now how exactly we can do that and with what rational methodology is a topic for another blog - but right now I think the preterist community needs to get back to the Biblical paradigm which does not hold texts in time-bound rigor mortis as the whole of the Book is to be read in light of the protological Fall and eschatological redemption. In short, the passage MUST have come to pass within the time limitations stated, otherwise the test for a false prophet would utterly fail. However, unlike the silly word games the hypers play (if it is fulfilled, then it is FULLY FILLED) which would then make Isaiah a false prophet, we have to be cognizant of the fact that God is predictable and there is a discernable pattern to the redemptive plan.

[1] - To those who are literarily impaired, this is an analogy, it means in no way shape or form that hyperpreterists are milkmaids and smoke crack. One might remember this when reading Sharon Beverly’s article as well.

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:

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.

Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.

Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Yes, I am a bit silly.

I had promised Samuel that I would detail the second recent incident where I was misrepresented. On a heretical site discussing his non-refutation of my assumption-filed article, Samuel said:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Really?? First - did I EVER say that I “didn’t have time”? No…. here is what I said:

HyperPreterist Samuel Frost has written a “response” (at least he seems to think so) to my argument for the condemnation of the Neo-Hymenæan gangrene. All Samuel seemed to prove, however, are two things. One, he has a shockingly poor comprehension of exactly what my point is. Two, he is able to completely miss the point using more words than Don Preston. Allllright. Seeing how he is arguing something I already addressed five years ago, this is not my top priority.

Gentry speaks of his experiences in dealing with hyperpreterist rebuttals:

Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions – or die the death of a thousand emails.

Just because someone, even someone as well-known in the movement as Samuel, writes something they think is devastating, that in no means obligates me to drop whatever plans I have to deal with that - especially when in my perspective I already dealt with this with Don Preston.

So misrepresentation number one: I didn’t say I had no time, I said it was not a priority.

Now onto misrepresentation number two:

…a person who writes blogs and articles all day

Oh really Samuel? ALL day? You do realize that I have a full-time professional job, at times I work two jobs, I have a family, I have friends, and I have other interests. Where in the world do you justify that I write blogs all day? I don’t even write one blog a day. And articles???? How many articles have I written Samuel? In five years of writing on the Net I have written the following articles that I can remember:

Angels We Have Heard on High (on the location of Christ’s Reign)
On the “Soon” Return of Jesus
The Angry Womyn’s Revised Bible (co-author)
Is It A Duck?
Christ: The Alpha and Omega
Raising Cain and Abel

as well as my Matthew 24 commentary (which took years as I only work on it sporadically) and another article that has not yet been published, but is a version of “Is It a Duck”

I have various other pieces that were not officially articles and perhaps I have forgotten a few, but as one can see, I am hardly a prolific writer. I certainly don’t spend all day to such an extent that someone cannot believe that I am not all lathered up about answering Samuel’s piece.

Now on to misrepresentation number three:

Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Again…. really? NEVER? Is that your final answer? Let’s see. When Don Preston missed the point (and this is included in the original article which Samuel says he read) I said:

The above article is a defense of my use of the term “Neo-Hymenaean” for modern self-styled “full preterists” and the condemnation of such teaching as a potentially damnable heresy within the framework of MY starting presuppositions. In other words, for the sake of evaluating my consistency/justification in doing such, I have asked the reader to take my beliefs as true simply for the sake of argument to determine if I am then behaving correctly within that paradigm. I make no claim whatsoever in that article to provide a proof for my starting presuppositions so any squawking that I failed to do so is simply whistling Dixie. I make explicit the limitations of my purpose/goal for this article in this opening statement:

And in response to Don’s comment:

Further, it is so glaringly obvious that Ms. Warren is seeking to distract attention away from the timing issue. Her entire thesis falls to the ground if indeed Paul taught by inspiration that the resurrection was to occur in the first century. Did anyone notice that Ms. Warren had not one substantive word to say about this issue?

I responded:

The only thing that is glaringly obvious is that Don has completely missed the point and proceeds then to show off how completely he has done so. Did anyone notice that it was never my point or goal to prove my presuppositions that Paul did not teach that the resurrection was to occur in the first century? Did anyone notice that I also did not have one substantive word to say about the history of Delaware?

And in my original blog in which Samuel and I first discussed this, Samuel said:

Now, IF your version of “orthodoxy” is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?).

And (remember Samuel said I NEVER said what the point was) then I responded (after reiterating this point ad nauseam prior to this entry):

YES!!!!!!! That is the point Sam! Congratulations! You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy - YET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I HAVE NO CHOICE. Neither does anyone else in the orthodox camp. So your continual claims to be one of the brethren is not honest to the claims of the orhtodox. WE CANNOT accept you that way. We are not being mean, nasty, heretic hunters when we say so, we are only being consistent with our beliefs. So when will you acknowledge that? When will you present your view forthrightly that way?? When Sam???

and

You kept arguing something I was not even arguing Sam. Too bad it took over seventy posts in this blog for you to figure that out.

There are many more statements to that effect in that discussion. Thus, I did say what my point was and even used the language - “That is the point Sam!”

Here is Samuel’s statement once again:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

I think the only thing that is correct in his statement is that I am “a person.”

Samuel, I am a stickler for accuracy - and if you says grossly inaccurate things I will catch them. And if I am called on doing that (as in our prior discussion) I will correct myself if I did.

There is enough drama and controversy about things I actually do say and do - you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.

I posted today an article with which I have significant disagreement. There are some contra-hymenaean articles I will not post because of my disagreement with some things said, and I do not subscribe to the enemy of enemy is my friend paradigm. But I posted the Bob Cope piece despite my opposition to his radical dispensationalism, denial of hell, rapture emphasis, and his denial of the reality of the possibility of apostasy. Why? Because these statements ring true:

I say, though, that a person can still be quite miserable in this life, over matters concerning a shattered faith especially if the convert to Preterism wakes up and realizes the full implications of what Preterism is all about. I’m sure that, coming to such a realization is quite shocking and does result in the overthrow of the faith of some; especially if there are no knowledgeable Christians around to counsel and keep that unhappy individual from abandoning his faith altogether. This is what the Slanderer, Satan hopes for. Why else would the warning in Scripture be worded as it is?

Verse 17, in the series quoted above, is also very noteworthy. There is no other sect —found in Paul’s epistles that is written of with as much gravity as that of Preterism. The Bible calls it, as though it were, a deadly, spreading, gangrene.

There is no way that Christ would inspire Paul, to write in the Scriptures, a warning of such magnitude that was only going to be temporary. No sir! The gangrene of Preterism is yet present, and is every bit as deadly to one’s faith, as it was when Christ first informed Paul of it.

…Preterism finishes the job of destroying one’s faith! Many people would throw up their hands in abject frustration at this point, when the realization of what Preterism truly represents hits them and sinks in. This is the point at which that person’s faith can correctly be said to have been overthrown. Trying to restore such a person after having been thus betrayed, is extremely difficult; and in some cases, outright impossible.

Let God be true and every man a liar. I have often stated there is more express Biblical warrant for condemning gangrenous hyperpreterism than there is for a great deal of other cultic teaching that is commony anathematized.

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?

My response:

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.