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 »

GARBC, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, has issued a Resolution Concerning Preterism and the Future, Physical Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecies. The entire resolution document also concerns the “New Perspective and Paul,” which is not of interest to this blog.

The resolution is both heartening (to me - as I am gladdened that the pernicious heresy of hyperpreterism is finally getting the condemnation it so richly deserves - the resolution is not worded as a condemnation but it does blatantly pick out certain items to hold up as an introduction) and disheartening as the author(s) apparently are not too well-educated, or perhaps not skilled at articulating, or perhaps are just downright ignorant, of the differences between orthodox preterists and hymenaean preterists. However, it is very clear what they are pronouncing condemnation in a sense, upon, despite the lack of clarity. Let’s take a look-see:

WHEREAS, some people today perpetuate the error of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17, 18) by teaching that the resurrection has already past, considering the promise of resurrection as previously fulfilled “spiritually��? with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70; and

They sure got that right, and they are making it clear what THE issue is: teaching that the resurrection has already past. Amen, Amen, preach my Baptist brethren.

Some people, known as Preterists, hold that during the Jewish War of AD 67–70 Jesus Christ came spiritually in judgment against Jerusalem, thereby fulfilling the Biblical prophecies concerning His second coming and judgments on all His enemies.

Here is where some confusion sets in. Though there are some “orthodox preterists” that label the AD70 events as the “second coming” such brethren are, number one, confused, and number two, NOT denying a future bodily return of Christ which is the concern of this resolution. This section could have used a holy dose of the refining fire. But the intent is stil clear - those who call themselves preterists (defiling a historically good term) that deny a future bodily return of Christ and a future bodily resurrection are who are being referred to.

I expect some ignorant hyperpreterists, if they have not done so already, to try to claim otherwise as they did with Hinson on a prominent heretical site, but if so, it will only show a clear lack of reading comprehension or a desparation to give credibility to their own view by latching onto orthodox coatails.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the messengers of the churches in fellowship with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, meeting for our 73rd Annual Conference in Lakeland, Florida, June 28—July 1, 2005, solemnly reaffirm our belief that many Biblical prophecies still await future, physical fulfillment;

That we unequivocally reject the idea that prophecies of the second coming, resurrection, and future judgments were fulfilled in the first century. We do not think that Christ’s millennial kingdom is here and now since Christ has not yet returned bodily to the earth in the same way in which He went up into Heaven (Acts 1:11), nor has He yet executed His judgments against the nations and Satan (Rev. 19:11—20:3);

Here is where I would part ways with their beliefs in that I am not premillennial - however, notice that such was not part of the “condemnation” part of the resolution.

The rest of the resolution articulates pretribulation, premillenial futurism. Such is their right, but I am so GLAD that they singled out what the real problems are. I would rather the world be premill, pretrib futurist than one soul be taken in by the hymenaean chimera. In fact (and no I am not trying to be Paulette), I really would rather be lumped in with the heretics, which is temporary, if that would help save people from the Pit which is eternal.

Yes, hymenaean hyperpreterism is a damnable heresy. Only God knows which of the adherents so-called are damned heretics.

At first exposure I did not see the AD 70 theory as anything having to do with fellowship or salvation. To me it seemed to be pretty much a harmless exercise in speculation about prophecies that men have speculated upon for centuries. But two factors are making it into much more than that. First, it ends up in a type of scripture denial that the Bible speaks of as spiritually fatal, denial of a coming resurrection. Second, it has in recent years developed an aggressiveness that was not there originally and this has made it a troublesome "issue," capable of dividing churches. Paul wrote that to deny a coming resurrection is to reduce faith to vanity and leave people yet in their sins. (1 Cor. 15:12-17). He also said that when Hymenaeus and Phyletus taught that the resurrection was past already, they overthrew the faith of some. (2 Tim. 2:17-18). These brethren are saying these two things, that no general resurrection is yet to come and that the resurrection has past already. So it is (1) destructive of vital elements of the faith and (2) in recent years has come to be divisive. So it is a consequential mistake.

Click for entire article

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.