|
|
|
BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
|
|
|
BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
|
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
when
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament. |
HYPER PRETERISM
"Full Preterist"
material is being archived for balanced representation of all Preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all Full Preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known Full Preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING:
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST" |
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.: DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
|
Confused! By Jeff Halfhide "partial-futurist writers often overstate the disagreement they have with preterists, when a much larger gulf separates both of them from the rest of Christianity. " Stuart Bryan and Joost Nixon have produced a statement against preterism titled “Statement on Neo-Hymenaeanism “ (Hereafter “Statement”). It appears to be an informative document to help warn the brethren against savage wolves. Unfortunately their warning lacks substance, and ends up nothing more than a statement of their bias. They begin by pointing out some of the recent inflammatory terms that they or others sympathetic to them have coined to degrade and confuse. Terms that do not incite bias and that are more descriptive are available. The word preterism comes from “past” and certainly denotes one that believes that events (in particular eschatological events) have already happened. Without further modification, the term preterist fits those who believe that the covenantal promises and curses were fulfilled. Partial-preterist or partial-futurist would then convey that some of those same promises are yet unfulfilled. There is nothing negative or pejorative about them. Many well known theologians hold this view, or are sympathetic to partial-futurism, including Ken Gentry, R. C. Sproul and others.Bryan and Nixon first try to place preterists ‘outside the camp’ by comparing them to “orthodox Christians” who have “always agreed on certain eschatological minimums”. The well-read protestant will and should have problems with the primary argument presented by the partial-futurist. Creeds and tradition are used as an authority to cast doubt on the preterist position before scripture is even examined. While it is good and beneficial to consult the traditions and records of men of faith throughout the centuries, many false doctrines have a better historic hearing than most of the views that the fine gentlemen on both sides of the current debate are willing to accept. In fact, Ken Gentry spends a great deal of time in his book “Before Jerusalem Fell” (BJF) discussing the relative merit of ‘witnesses’ from the 1st and 2nd century. It is also worth noting that partial-futurist totally overlook that the uniform witness of the early church is to a single parousia. Preterists hold to a single parousia, partial-futurists generally hold to at least two. They are willing to admit to 70AD as ‘a’ parousia, with another ‘greater’ or ‘final’ parousia in the future. How is their difference less heterodox then disagreeing with the creeds about the time frame? Second, the partial-futurist agrees with preterism on the majority of texts and hermeneutical principles. As long as the debate is between a futurist (such as a Dispensationalist) and a partial-futurist, the partial-futurist will consistently use the same arguments and scriptures that a preterist does. Bryan and Nixon admit that Matt 24 and Luke 20 as well as most other references to the parousia and the end of the aeon refer to the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. BJF is one of the best defenses of the preterist position around, even though Gentry is a partial-futurist. The hermeneutic that one adopts to interpret Matthew 24 as a past event works the same for 1 Thess 5:23. Thirdly, partial-futurist writers often overstate the disagreement they have with preterists, when a much larger gulf separates both of them from the rest of Christianity. Bryan and Nixon exemplify this when they posit that preterism “destroys the Christian view of history”. They point out a fairly significant difference but avoid pointing out the much larger gap that exists between the ‘pessimistic’ view of history presented by the futurist (as typified by the Dispensationalist) and either preterists or partial-futurists. The point of history, the flow of history and God’s hand moving within history are very similar for the non-futurist. Preterists and partial-futurists both hold that God’s will is victorious and that history is the vindication of His glory. We just disagree about how and when specific events do that. Finally “Statement” and other partial-futurist arguments resort to absurd, false conclusions rather than addressing the issues. Preterists are accused of using an “overly rigid” exegesis. Partial-futurists agree with the premise of preterism, and as they are willing to point out, many of the verses that preterists use to build their argument. Then the partial-futurist drags over the crass, literalism of the Dispensationalist (with whom they disagree in principle yet hang on to the particulars themselves) and then find the preterist guilty by association with their own bad theology! As an example, let us look closer at one of the charges brought up in the “thought experiment” of the “Statement”. Although all of them are absurd, the idea that Christ’s reign would end if the parousia had occurred is the simplest to address. Will Christ’s reign ever end? Obviously the word until used in 1 Cor. 15:23 does not denote that Christ will only rule for a certain period of time and then stop. The force of the passage dictates that the reign will certainly include the other events, or the purpose of the reign is to bring about the other events. If we may venture into the area of the absurd, let us examine the typical view of the resurrection body. There is only a finite amount of material on the earth. The dust of our physical bodies has certainly been through many cycles of people through the generations, as dead flesh decays it is reused by plants for nutrients and back through the chain it goes. In the resurrection, who gets the atoms? The original owners? Do we time share? Are the atoms distributed equally with each person getting a portion? What about people born with deformities or missing limbs? Do they get the same physical shape when they are “refleshed”? And much more absurd is the idea of ‘a woman in childbirth, groaning under contractions’ for 2000 years. It seems that Nixon and Bryan consider abandoning the most obvious time statements in scripture responsible exegesis. It appears that Bryan and Nixon are ignorant or willfully overlooking the preterist argument about the resurrection body. I believe that the bodies we receive will be like the body that Christ presented to the disciples. The preterists that I speak with and the articles I have read generally say the same. I don’t believe that we will get the same atoms that we have while we are in these perishable bodies, bodies that are destined to return to dust, because “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” This dust we wear now will be “sown a natural body” but we will be “raised [as] a spiritual body”. We may disagree about how we get the new body, but the nature of the body is not really the issue. Ironically, there is no attempt by “Statement” to actually refute exegetically any of the passages that form the crux of the accusation. Specifically the charge is that “despite the clear teaching of Scripture [on the parousia and the resurrection], the unanimous testimony of the Church, and the devastating consequences of its position” preterists still hold to their heresy. The problem is that there seems to be a lack of the “clear teaching” presented, at least by “Statement”; the church is not unanimous; and the consequences need to be addressed AFTER the clear teaching has been laid out. So, since the definition of preterism specifically mentions the misuse of parousia and aeon, one would expect to find the exceptions clearly identified and used as a battering ram to break down the poorly built edifice of the heretics. On the contrary, an entirely different set of passages is brought up, somewhat on the sideline, to put forth the “clear teaching” regarding the “last day”. While there is certainly merit in addressing the last day passages, as well as correlating judgment and resurrection within the teaching of the last day, the parousia does stand at the forefront begging to be dealt with. Another irony brought out in “Statement” as well as other anti-preterist writings is the total lack of mention of covenant judgment on the Jews. Don Preston very ably addresses this dearth in his book “Who is This Babylon”. The judgment of the covenant breakers is a major theme of most of the NT scriptures, indeed the whole bible. In 70AD the trial, indictment, and judgment of the harlot is clearly displayed. It is the historical culmination of the Old Covenant; all the curses came to bear on the generation that called for the Messiah’s blood shedding to be imputed to them. That is certainly a pivotal, earthshaking event for the entire inhabited earth. The Creator divorced, shamed and executed His adulterous wife and married another, is that not something that affected every living being from all time? It was a time of great change; one NEW man was made from among the Old Covenant people and the gentiles. The New Covenant that the faithful Jews had been longing for generation after generation had finally come. The first century was the apex of history. More covenantal events occurred in that generation than any other. It is odd that those who hold to “Covenant Theology” could miss such significant events. A Final comment on the comment from “Statement” regarding Christ’s resurrection. “Statement” warns “For now, most Neo-Hymenaeists shrink from denying Christ's physical resurrection. However, if God does not grant them repentance, one day the weight of the premises will snap their resistance and the logic will drive them to a bodiless Christ, a Savior not found in Scripture.” This is a ludicrous statement driven by ignorance. Preterism is an exegetical position and preterists have repeatedly shouted that they believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ and that we will get a body like His. The difference between preterists and partial-futurists on this point remains a debate about how and when the resurrection body is ‘delivered’. This shows that Bryan and Nixon have not really understood preterism, nor have they entered significantly into the realm of biblical hermeneutics. As pointed out above, a clear line between the consequences of our theology and our theology is essential to have an understanding of our Bibles. If a position is biblical, then we deal with the consequences, however unpleasant or damaging to our pet views, or the views of great Christians from history. But it is irresponsible to change our hermeneutic simply because it leads to conclusions we don’t like. In the end, the Bryan and Nixon’s statement seems to suffer from this fallacy. Confused? Well it is not surprising. The “Statement” is really a diatribe. If their aim was to cause hatred and mistrust of preterism, they may be close to the mark. If they were trying to present the fallacy of preterism, they have a long way to go.
What do YOU think ?
CommentsA first-rate refutation of "partial-futurism" leveled at a magnitude that will force those "exegetical side steppers" to finally face up to the great gulf between themselves and what they perceive to be orthodox eschatology. I was impressed with the incisive and penetrating insight into the differences between what "partial-futurists" say they believe, compared to what their demonstrated hermeneutical fruit proves them to actually believe. And as always, the review brings into bold relief the misunderstandings, willful or otherwise, that "partial-futurists" are determined to cling to as indictive of what Preterists really believe. Walt Hibbard PreteristAD70@uReach.com
CommentsJust one more example of the unprofitable bickering that has existed for more than 1,900 years as a result of scholars' proud reliance on personal opinions of various proof texts rather than their humble reliance on complete and consistent typology. The first essential step in understanding the NT is the recognition that the first three natural events in the history of OT, natural Israel -- the slaying of the natural lambs, the hasty departure from Egypt, and the nation's safe emergence from the Red Sea -- were merely TYPES of the slaying of Christ, his hasty burial, and his safe emergence from the tomb. The second essential step is the recognition that the remaining natural events in the history of OT, natural Israel (up to and including the nation's final destruction in AD 70) also were merely TYPES of incomparably greater spiritual events involving NT, spiritual Israel (Christ and the church).
CommentsI have dealt with a partial-futurist before (and I am a Preterist). I find that view to be almost as useless as futurism, that is, they are crowd pleasers. While strict futurists try to please the church with their "movie-goer" doctrines, partial-futurists try to please both the "movie-goer" church, and the scripturally sound Preterist family. Frankly the only advantage a partial-futurist has is that they are a couple of steps closer to Preterism, although fundamentally they are still futurists. One day we will have a fully Preterist church, for the church cannot refute the Word of God forever, nor can they refute simple logic and common sense forever. A side message to all futurist/partial-futurists: STOP RELYING ON YOUR CREEDS AND OLD CHURCH DOCTRINES! THEY ARE NOT INSPIRED! Sola Scriptura A.J.
CommentsJH: Start with my 10-2-03 comment above and also see the brief overview of the Bible that I added last night (at 20:28:46) to the recent article entitled "Kiser's Science."
CommentsDon't you think the that the Lord God can put the atoms of our bodies back together if He wants to? Why did Jesus eat fish? Why did Jesus cook breakfast? Moreover, how did He grab a physical literal utensil to cook breakfast? If His body was spiritual, how did Thomas put his finger in His side? A non physical body cannot grab ahold of physical things. You might say " His is Jesus Christ, God incarnate, He can do what He wants. That is the same argument I am using....kind of circular huh? I am in the camp of a physical resurrection body, which is the majority...but being in the majority doesn't make you right. There is merit to the preterist hermeneutic, but if to be taken seriously then reform must take place in some areas of pantelism. Do you have any answers to these questions or comments? Scott Piland scott.m.piland@moody.edu (I am not a dispensationalist just because I'm at Moody)
CommentsJeff I continue to study and read almost daily about the preterist view. My view follows closey to that of the preterist. After having been a christian for some time now and I have fellowshipped with a few different groups in my life. One particular group would have consider your constructive comments as “caustic”, “contentious”, even considered “factious” to the body of Christ. Tom
CommentsTom I know what you mean. Some things can't be explained to some people. Even considering preterism as a possibility would be enough to condemn me. "If your hermeneutic leads you to preterism change your hermeneutic" is something that a friend of mine was told. How do you even address that? How can you decide truth if you rule out options based on how you feel about them?
CommentsDear Mr. Piland, You asked some great questions. I would love to be able to discuss them with you. Do you prefer an e-mail conversation or maybe you would like to go to one of the forums and get feed back from several different views? I will give you an answer to part of your post. God can do whatever He desires. I think that He can easily put the dust back together if that is what He wants to do. The question is what does he intend to do with this dust? Can flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God? Let me ask a few questions. Is heaven up? Is the New Jerusalem made with Gold cobblestones? Will there be a audible rattle to the chain that is wrapped around Satan when he is thrown in the pit? These are just some warm up questions so we have someplace to go. Thanks again for your inquiry. Jeff Halfhide
CommentsHi Jeff, Ward Fenley here. I liked the article...and it appears you have come to some conclusions since we last chatted. It seems, from your article, that you believe in some sort of body we get upon physical death...but how does that work, considering, according to your article, that we don't go anywhere (i.e. heaven)? In Christ, Ward
CommentsIt seems to me that in questioning how God could raise physical bodies that have already decayed, you are questioning the power of God, not the nature of resurrection.
CommentsRestoration Isaiah 65:17 “Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth—so wonderful that no one will even think about the old ones anymore. 18 Be glad; rejoice forever in my creation! And look! I will create Jerusalem as a place of happiness. Her people will be a source of joy. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and delight in my people. And the sound of weeping and crying will be heard no more. 20 “No longer will babies die when only a few days old. No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life. No longer will people be considered old at one hundred! Only sinners will die that young! 21 In those days, people will live in the houses they build and eat the fruit of their own vineyards. 22 It will not be like the past, when invaders took the houses and confiscated the vineyards. For my people will live as long as trees and will have time to enjoy their hard-won gains. 23 They will not work in vain, and their children will not be doomed to misfortune. For they are people blessed by the LORD, and their children, too, will be blessed. 24 I will answer them before they even call to me. While they are still talking to me about their needs, I will go ahead and answer their prayers! Genesis 1:30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and lamb will feed together. The lion will eat straw like the ox. Poisonous snakes will strike no more. In those days, no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain. I, the LORD, have spoken!” This prophecy is not about Christ. Christ came to fulfill the prophecy about the Messiah. The RESTORATION of God’s Holy Mountain is in progress. For certain it is as Christianity continues to dominate the world. Deuteronomy 7:9 Understand, therefore, that the LORD your God is indeed God. He is the faithful God who keeps his covenant for a thousand generations and constantly loves those who love him and obey his commands. Currently, we are only about three thousand four hundred years in to covenants God keeps for forty thousand years. How do we not have a restoration that is obviously in progress? And shall continue until, The lion will eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 65:25b? Only because the restoration is in progress that the prophecy cannot be ignored. George W. Sloan Wed 9-15-04
CommentsRestoration Isaiah 65:17 “Look! I am creating new heavens and a new earth—so wonderful that no one will even think about the old ones anymore. 18 Be glad; rejoice forever in my creation! And look! I will create Jerusalem as a place of happiness. Her people will be a source of joy. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and delight in my people. And the sound of weeping and crying will be heard no more. 20 “No longer will babies die when only a few days old. No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life. No longer will people be considered old at one hundred! Only sinners will die that young! 21 In those days, people will live in the houses they build and eat the fruit of their own vineyards. 22 It will not be like the past, when invaders took the houses and confiscated the vineyards. For my people will live as long as trees and will have time to enjoy their hard-won gains. 23 They will not work in vain, and their children will not be doomed to misfortune. For they are people blessed by the LORD, and their children, too, will be blessed. 24 I will answer them before they even call to me. While they are still talking to me about their needs, I will go ahead and answer their prayers! Genesis 1:30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. Genesis 3:21 And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife. Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and lamb will feed together. The lion will eat straw like the ox. Poisonous snakes will strike no more. In those days, no one will be hurt or destroyed on my holy mountain. I, the LORD, have spoken!” This prophecy is not about Christ. Christ came to fulfill the prophecy about the Messiah. The RESTORATION of God’s Holy Mountain is in progress. For certain it is as Christianity continues to dominate the world. Deuteronomy 7:9 Understand, therefore, that the LORD your God is indeed God. He is the faithful God who keeps his covenant for a thousand generations and constantly loves those who love him and obey his commands. Currently, we are only about three thousand four hundred years in to covenants God keeps for forty thousand years. How do we not have a restoration that is obviously in progress? And shall continue until, The lion will eat straw like the ox. Isaiah 65:25b? Only because the restoration is in progress that the prophecy cannot be ignored. George W. Sloan Wed 9-15-04
CommentsWard, so sorry to miss your comments. I haven't checked here for a while. You are right and I have migrated a bit since writing the article. As usual, the halfway position is easier to explain and support (or at least breifer). Love to talk more, e-mail stauron@netzero.com Thanks |
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |
