 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|  Website Color Key |
|
|
|
Radicalism: The Old Heterodoxy By Ward Fenley (mailto:info@eschatology.com) The ecumenical movement in the United States is gaining more and more popularity, as the driving urge of professing Christendom is to unify. Though it may seem harmless, the effects of unification with those under the humanistic doctrines of Arminianism and/or baptismal regeneration are compromise and the perversion of the Gospel. The following is a suggestion made to a public forum by an adherent of the doctrines of baptismal regeneration and Arminianism:
My response: I have thought about this conference idea too, because so much gets lost in posts going back and forth-not so much information but explanation. By the time we get done sending the 5th or 6th post dealing with any given thread, we have forgotten elements of a person's thought that were expressed in the intial posts. That is why I always keep email. Of course I do not expect others to do this because some people only have 350 megs of memory on a 386. But I do not have the most wonderful memory, so I need to keep track of email. I can at least (by the grace of God) remember portions, so then I just do a search message thing and I find that for which I am searching. I love your idea, but the only real barrier is this: Some, like yourself, are Arminian. Others are Calvinistic. These are two vastly different approaches to Scripture. Conference or no conference we could never end up in the same place. Why? Because our view of revelation is entirely different. The true Calvinist believes in determinism and absolute predestination. The true Arminian doesn't. Some like to argue a halfway house. But if we all sat down and really thought about omniscience and omnipotence philosophically speaking, we would see that we would have to choose black or white. This is why I have some respect for men like Clark Pinnock. They at one time were Calvinistic, but not completely. Therefore, to the best of their ability, they sought out all the possibilities. They simply could not accept determinism, but realized that if they affirmed the omniscience and omnipotence of God, they would be forced into that arena of Christian thought. So, with as much consistency as they could conjure, they concluded that God was not omniscient. These men are not idiots. They are some of the greatest thinkers alive. Why? Because they diligently considered the ramifications of their paradigm. And when push came to shove they realized that in order to maintain integrity in their own mind, both theologically and philosophically, they would have to change their paradigm. And so they did. As you can see, through the labyrinth of posts on this list, I am sure you realize that most are really pro-preterism. The discussions on sovereignty vs. freewill have been limitless. Certainly elements of thought were lost (and maybe even some crucial ones). But if we were really thinkers, I strongly believe we would end up black or white on this issue of the implications of God's omniscience and omnipotence. Such attributes are the foundation upon which all other doctrines stand or fall. Without unity on the implications of these attributes, a conference would be futile. There would merely be a greater knowledge of preterism, but no unity concerning the knowledge of God. I do not mean to sound pessimistic in my approach. However, if people really would just stop and take these attributes of God and just ponder the implications of such attributes, I believe there would be an enormous amount of progress made. Why? Because, to my knowledge there is not one person on this list who would deny those attributes (to my knowledge!). Now, please do not get me wrong. I am extremely presuppositional in my understanding of apologetics. It is simply not true that MERE THINKING will take a person to a black or white approach to sovereignty and freewill. I believe in divine revelation to the mind. Certainly affirmation of those attributes is one thing. But respect for those attributes is entirely another. My hope is that all true Christians will be led to think and come to a black and white conviction on these attributes of God. Until this aspect gets reconciled, The Church of Christ and Arminians should have their conferences and the Calvinists should have theirs. The labels are sickening because they imply certain men. It should be rephrased: The Deists should have their conferences and the Determinists should have theirs. Now, I know Calvinists that would despise to be called Determinists. And I know Arminians that would despise to be called Deists. But it is black and white, my friends. Hate the label…that is fine. But let's be honest. Start at the basics. Omniscience and Omnipotence-God. I am not opposed to men and women from each camp attending the others' conferences. But to mix preaching...it is just not harmonious. Of course I would not hesitate to speak at a COC conference or an Arminian conference. But I would know that my obligation to such would be to show forth God as I believe the Bible proclaims Him and use that as my springboard into this subject we call preterism. But there would be confusion. Consider the confusion of such a conference. Just think if I were to speak at the last Parkman Road COC conference where Max King elevated freewill to the highest degree (yet with barely a small enough disclaimer to deny the deity of mere men). There would be utter confusion-nothing short. Now, granted, there are other so-called Calvinistic preterists who simply want to share their view of preterism with the world and will fully submit to preaching nothing that would contradict the COC position concerning freewill. This is what I call tolerance. Because they want to be known in the preterist arena, they tolerate others and even do not speak what they believe. Paul said "We believe, therefore we have spoken." Seriously, how terrible of us, whatever our convictions, to bow to a decree telling us to not preach what we believe. This is awful. This is the most tragic problem among many professing Christians today. They are not honest. They do not just come out and speak what they believe. If we believe something with our whole heart, we are foolish to withhold it regardless of our conviction. I have an element of great respect for men like Farakkan though I despise his conclusions. The reason he is where he is and the Black/Islamic movement is growing so fast is because he speaks his convictions. Now we may not be happy about it. But he is a thinker and he knows what is necessary to change society. We believe, therefore we have spoken. I look at the greatest thinkers of society: Socrates, Aristotle, Gengis Khan, Idi Amin, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Jesus Christ, Paul, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist. Of course the first few were unbelievers, but they had radical beliefs that they proclaimed with all their might. Look what happened. They changed society. The most encouraging thing is that the Greatest of all of thinkers has shined forth with a message that cannot die. The rest will ultimately be forgotten. The point being, that in order to start a revolution (not a mere revival, but a revolution) one must speak to society that which segments of society hate. But to compromise and keep one foot in and one foot out is the most despicable method of gaining proselytes. That method will die. The seeker church is at its most glorious phase as one of the fastest growing religious movements to ever strike America and the world. But will it last? Absolutely not. Why? Because there is no black and white. There is no absolute belief, as is testified in their motto: "Make the unchurched feel comfortable in church." Do we really think that this movement will change society? Will the seeker church stand out in 50 years as much as Joseph Stalin has since his death? Of course not. Because people deep down know that it is simply a feel-good thing and know that feel-good things do not ultimately satisfy, or change the behavior of, society. I want to see society changed, so I am willing to preach what I know enormous sections of society hate. Sure, I can call it truth and I believe what I preach is truth. But I am not trying to convince you at this point of my particular theology. I am trying to convey with the utmost seriousness the problem of the social club of professing Christendom. My contention is that we preach exactly what we believe immediately when the unction comes to preach it, regardless of whether we know society will hate it. Call it radical. That is fine. But you know that every person on this list could not call the above mentioned men anything less than radical. Why on earth do you suppose the bloody tolerant Pharisees said that John the Baptist and Jesus were possessed with devils? Why did Festus say that Paul was mad? Why do you suppose Michal derided David as a vain fellow for dancing with all his might before the Lord? Was it because these men were compromising their beliefs to satisfy the lusts of the age? Absolutely not. Consider the opposite. Do we really believe that Billy Graham is having an impact on society? Mark my words: Billy Graham will be an obscure name in a hundred years. Why? Because ecumenicity has taken hold on him. It amazes me how so many people are worried about a one-world government. Don't they understand that God has created too many radicals for there to be such a government where tolerance rules the globe? All this to say that a distinction need to be made in this day. If I am to be really honest (If I may be so bold, for which I will probably catch the heat)...The real black and white distinction is this: Theists or Atheists. There is no middle ground. There may be different levels of understanding, but philosophically and theologically there is no middle ground. For the pleasure of God, Ward Fenley
|
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |
Warning: "Full
Preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all
Christian Preterist views, but its premise is deemed by the opinion of
the curator (a
former full preterist) to be "toxic theology." Due to its
brash and "letter-based" appeal to the flesh and "things seen," it very
subtly draws people away from the truth of the Spirit and His "unseen things"
(core components of the system being extra-biblical history and logic -- because there is
not one full preterist verse which looks back to
fulfillment in ad70,
it is based entirely upon deductive reasoning). If you have already
adopted this viewpoint, please seriously consider that according to full
preterism, 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.
This is done by teaching that AD70 was a "dispensational line"
regarding redemption and the like which makes the revealed New Testament
Christianity completely different from that of today (faith vs. sight ; hope vs.
fulfilled, no more paraclete work of the Holy Spirit, much etc.).
Teaching such a wholesale overthrow of biblical
Christianity is hugely irresponsible and catastrophically dangerous, is it not?
If the New Testament scriptures do not reveal our circumstances as
Christians, then what does? If you find yourself reading the Bible through
the filter of AD70, trying to decide what applies to today and what does not,
then you know you are already coming under the influence of this tendency. Please also note that the earliest
known adherents of full preterism later abandoned it, as have many contemporary
former full preterists, including the curator of this archive (after a decade
of promotion). The "past spiritual resurrection" view is the theology that Paul
condemned in II Timothy 2:17-18, and the cessationism of this view likewise
overthrows faith and hope -- by doctrinal insistence that faith has been turned
into sight, and that hope became a tree of life in AD70, etc. The article
which follows is deemed "full preterist" in nature
-- so please proceed with extreme caution. If this article is not "full
preterist" in nature, please notify me and I will have it reclassified.
