Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)


David S. Clark - The Message From Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation (1921) "This early twentieth-century Postmillennial commentary on the Book of Revelation, written by the father of theologian Gordon Clark, offers an easy-to-read alternative to the popular Pre-millennial/Dispensational views of the best-selling Scofield Reference Bible and a multitude of other dissertations on end-time prophecy that litter the shelves of Christian bookstores. "



Historical Preterism
Historical Preterism Main
Study Archive

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus

David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce

Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards

E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange

Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther

James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
 Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink

Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius

Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon

Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield

Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright

John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

  Anathema of Full Preterism

By The Reformed Church in the United States

The Reformed Church in the United States
Takes Action to Condemn Hyper-Preterism as Heresy

Overture to the Western Classis

The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church does hereby overture the Western Classis to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:

"Whereas,

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no physical Resurrection of the body, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that the Second Coming of our Lord is already past, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no future Great White Throne Judgment, and

Whereas, these views represent a satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, the Reformed Church in the United States does hereby find the Hymenaean heresy to be contrary to orthodoxy, and its adherents to be preachers of a false gospel. Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be anathema maranatha."

We further urge the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States to broadly communicate the action taken this day to those of like precious faith, that the people of God may be warned against this false gospel, and encouraged to pray for the repentance of those lost souls who have been enslaved by it.

ADOPTED BY WESTERN CLASSIS MARCH 13, 1997 AND FORWARDED TO SYNOD.


[TDD: Hymenaeus and Philetus were heretics condemned by the Apostle Paul in 2 Tim. 2:17-18 for saying that the resurrection is already past. Hymenaeus and Alexander are also condemned in 1 Tim. 1:19-20.]

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Date:

24 Sep 2001
Time:
21:07:53

Comments

Is it possible that the view of Hymenaeus and Philetus that Paul condemned by saying "the resurrection is already past" refers to the notion that after being born again the flesh nature is no longer in man? Clearly at the resurrection of the just, there will no longer be a flesh nature in glorified bodies, but to claim that the current state of the flesh nature is as it will be in the resurrection is to claim "the resurrection is already past"...a view that clearly requires condemnation since it strikes at the heart of the good news...viz that we can have victory over the flesh as we follow our Savior who "went through the veil that is His flesh" and gloriouslly overcame.....Joe


Date:
28 Oct 2001
Time:
04:34:59

Comments

Anyone who thinks the resurrection and rapture and final judgment have already come is FLATLY OUT TO LUNCH AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TEACH SCRIPTURE IN ANY CHURCH. I am in charge of adult education in my church, and there's no way I'd allow a full preterist to teach.


Date:
28 Oct 2001
Time:
19:22:13

Comments

Recently a friend of mine was told by his pastor that he had to stop seeing or fellowshipping with me because of my views on eschatology.

He told him not to even try it - to his credit.

I would suggest that IF I dared to go to that "church" I would be soon excommunicated.

I am no longer foolish enough to play church with people like that. Power hungry freaks who condemn anyone who does not bow to their authority.

Thankfully Christ has delivered me from all of that.

Who was the first Christian to be X-ed from the church - Jesus our eX-ample.


Date:
11 Nov 2001
Time:
11:14:15

Comments

I have a real problem with the kind of preterism that teaches that Jesus will not come again physically, and the dead will all be raised to judgement. I believe these are crucial to biblical Christianity and I am certain they are part of the Apostles Creed. Any preterists that leave these foundational truths behind are on very shaky ground, and I believe would have been kicked out of the church in the days of the apostles, and that took some real abhorrant practices or beliefs in those days(see Rom. 14,15 -bear with the weak brothers) On the other hand, preterists that believe many of the other prophecies have been fulfilled I believe are ok as long as they recognize that Jesus is coming back someday in all of His Glory with the angels of God to judge the living and the dead. God bless you all and lets seek unity with all of our might where possible I pray -John 17:21 Greg S.


Date:
18 Nov 2001
Time:
15:56:44

Comments

Its interesting to me that the 'Full Preterist' and the 'Dispensationalist' hold so much in common. Niether can well explain the 5th and 6th chapters of John. And both hold the Revelation as primarily a Second Advent prophecy.


Date:
22 Nov 2001
Time:
05:31:31

Comments

How do preterists interpret 1 Thes 4?

I was hoping to find out but can not find anything on it. 

(I Thess 4 refers to the spiritual gathering of Christ's nation into their spiritual home, as well as the external circumstances of the "Day of the Lord", such as the flight to Pella (loosely) - TDD)


Date:
01 Dec 2001
Time:
04:40:53

Comments

How can anyone read the bible,take it at what God clearly inspired it to say,and not study themselfs into a full preterist? When Jesus Christ told the seven churches in the book of Revelation that "I'AM COMING QUICKLY",in 4 places I think they believed HIM.

If I told someone that 'I'AM COMING QUICKLY",I do not think that would be 2000 years from now.


Date:
25 Dec 2001
Time:
20:36:05

Comments

I personally think that if one were to openly and honestly study The Holy Scriptures as written and delivered to the early Churches, without their preconceived fanciful notions, removing their rose colored theological glasses and without personal bias and indoctrination, with the use of proper hermenutics, historicty, time lines, etc; that they would be hard pressed to reach any eschatological solution which best fits "end time" prophecies other than the preterist position.

I personally was an devout premillenalist dispensationalist for thirty seven ( 37 )years, because I was raised and taught so. But when I began to study the Bible for myself rather than taking doctrinal things at face value, I could no longer honestly make that system fit the Scriptures. I studied the rest of the "known" eschatological doctrines such as "mid trib," "post trib," "A millenial," "modified dispensationalist," etc. However, none of those would fit the Scriptures either without "force fitting" them to suit your own pet therories and personal doctrines.

Actually, I'd never even heard of the "preterist" doctrine, but I arrived there on my own for the most part in my personal studies without even realizing I'd become a preterist, until I became familar with that position and "term" several years later. And of course, I had ALREADY been labeled a heritic because I no longer could hold any of the "main stream" doctrines, long before I even became a preterist. Which only goes to show that when you no longer hold to established doctrines, you're automatically a heritic. But in studying the "Works of Josephus," "Philo," "Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," "The Apostolic Fathers," "New Testament History," etc; ( much of which the Church hierarchy had rather the lay person wouldn't know )

I soon discovered that alot of today's "so called" doctrines were never known or even held by the early Church Fathers. Such as a "rebuilt temple in Jerusalem" and a "certain thousand year millennium" were condemned and pronounced anathema by John Himself and many other Church Fathers. The very doctrines the main stream denominations are teaching themselves today, would have had them labeled as heritics by the early Church Fathers, so they shouldn't be so hasty in judgement and labeling others heritics when they're on shaky theological ground themselves and would be hard pressed to have their own doctrines, teachings and traditions to hold up under the test of Scripture and historical Christianity. Respectfully, William L. Rush.


Date:
07 Jan 2002
Time:
17:53:04
Remote User:

Comments

I have recently come to accept the preterist view of eschotology of end times matters. I have been of the futurist view all of my Christian life and have always had problems with the pre-millenial view of the scriptures.

 I would think that if someone is going to have a paridigm shift to the preterist view why would they want to settle for a partial preterist view only. It would seem to me to be very hypocritical to take such a position. On the same order as serving two masters.


Date:
17 Jan 2002
Time:
03:34:58

Comments

The Journey To Preterism …

… is not easy. … usually begins from a healthy curiousity about the accuracy of Dispensationalism. … is marked by a growing disgust for the Goofyness of Dispensatonalism. … contains a comfortable and temporarily satisfying sojourn in the land of Partial Preterism. … is marked by a note of terror as one diligently and prayerfully examines all previous views. … fills the sojourner with vastly alternating emotions, ranging from outright superiority to monk-like flagellation. … brings nightmares, dark terror and self examination. Questions like “Am I a heretic?” are regular fare. … might cost some friends. … leads to the dawning of a new day. … brings the opening of scripture.… produces overwhelming wonder at the Glory of the Church.… produces deeper and more meaningful worship.… is worth it.

Advice to Preterists for what it is worth. Love the Brethren, walk in humility and contend for peace.

AJP


Date:
17 Jan 2002
Time:
18:19:20

Comments

this is in response to Todd who believes that anyone who is of the Preterist view should be excommunicated from their church? I have recently been studying and researching the scriptures and the information on the preteristarchives website and the more I listen to futuristic, pre-millenial, dispensationalist's the closer I find myself on the side of the Preterist's my good brother. Preterists are not by any means denying the resurrection of the body.

You futurists are so wrapped up in the physical and the materialistic world that you just can't wait to get back to planet earth! Jesus plainly states, His Kingdom is not of this world.... why can't we just take him at His Word.

Speaking of the Resurrection of the body, why would you want your old decayed body back when God has something better in store for us? 1Cor15:44-46


Date:
17 Jan 2002
Time:
18:26:08

Comments

Are their historians writing of the period around 70AD that mention the return of Christ at that time?


Date:
05 Mar 2002
Time:
23:25:09

Comments

great response letter! Hopefully they will accecpt and bring more light to the darkness of futurism. We look forward to these debates and the growth of Biblical Preterism. Keep up the good work, ReformationHammer


Date:
06 Mar 2002
Time:
10:50:34

Comments

How often is it necessary to "defend" preterism? Another thing; doesn't acknowledging the misanthropic rantings of others give them legitimacy? Rather, why not ignore the attacks as simple misunderstandings that either will, or will not resolve themselves? Does this continuous scab-picking benefit anyone?


Date:
11 Mar 2002
Time:
06:43:51

Comments

It is time for the reformation of eschatology.just as it was time for the reformation of Martin Luther. Keith Bernhagen Messiah Reformed Church Omaha, Nebraska E-Mail : Fololower0@Yahoo.com


Date:
11 Mar 2002
Time:
22:43:18

Comments

It gives me great grief to hear so many Christians. from Orthodoxy to Restorationism to Roman Catholicism admit that Jesus and the Apostle DID indeed teach what is basically outlined in the Preterist view, and then say, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I can't be baptized unless I give it up. I can't take communion unless I am baptized. And there is no Preterist Church. Stranded and wishing for my own personal end.


Date:
16 Mar 2002
Time:
20:09:44

Comments

Do you know where I can read the article by Geissler? I have listened to Mr. Preston on the radio programs with J. Anderson and thoroughly enjoy him!


Date:
22 Mar 2002
Time:
12:02:26
Remote User:

Comments

"Me thinks thou dost protest too much". Men throw stones at living creatures, not dead ones! Why not write a condemnation of Nestorianism? Why? It is dead and buried in the historical grave yard of Christianity. If Christ has established the New Coveant, and we are resurrected immediately following death, and there is no cosmological end to this cosmos, what do these facts have to do with the redemptive power of the New Covenant? David Thoreau said, "There are a hundred men sawing off branches, for every man striking at the root." Realized Eschatology has cost most of us dearly as we discarded the benefits of traditionalism. Bob Pelham, N. C. usmc1div@earthlink.net


Date:
20 Apr 2002
Time:
00:50:01

Comments

You have done a great disservice by this horrible Popish action against the Holy and Infallible Word of God... even in Jesus' Name, too! You know, in your honest moments, that preterism is the ONLY true Biblical explanation of a large volume of prophetic passages, yet you obviously hate the Lord so much, that you join with Liberals and worshippers of the Pope in this anti-christ ruling. God help you.


Date:
07 May 2002
Time:
15:20:41

Comments

What I read in this anathema is something of what the Roman Catholics gave to Martin Luther.(RC) used tradition and not the exegesis of all the Scripture to come to their conclusions. God help the Reformed Church in the USA. A quote from David Green is helpful here "If preterists are ever to be universally and authoritatively excommunicated, then sufficient evidence against the teaching must be presented. Where might this evidence be found? In Scripture? If so, the world awaits the painstaking exegesis from the preterist-haters. Irenaeus exegetically refuted the Valentinians. Tertullian exegetically refuted the Marcionites. Athanasius exegetically refuted the Arians. Augustine exegetically refuted the Manicheans, Donatists and Pelagians. Countless saints painstakingly exegeted Scriptures in refutations of damnable heresies. They were very effective. If heretical preterism is a "lofty thing" that has been "raised up against the knowledge of God," (II Cor. 10:5) then the creedalists are obliged to use "divinely powerful ...weapons" for its "destruction." (II Cor. 10:4) Their front-line weapon of offense must be the Word of God (Eph. 6:17). Using the Word of God as a backup weapon if the Creeds don't do the trick won't defeat preterism, even if preterism is falsehood. Therefore then, if preterism is false, let Scripture prove it false. And if preterism is true, let Scripture prove it true. May our creedalist brothers be given the grace to let the Scriptures so speak."


Date:
17 Jun 2002
Time:
22:19:54

Comments

Eschatology has as much to with living for God as a wedding does for a baby girl. Sure it may take place, it will be fun, and it is nice to dream, but a whole site just for this? Just be patient and quiet and let God be God and his will unfold. Hmmm, seems to me that we forgot that Jesus was about people and not religion. It is the highways and byways that we are to go to find those seeking him. Nothing else of this discussion really matters. We are to be apart from the world and not apart from each other. The only question that should be raised from this is if Jesus is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? If all power has been given to him, and we are to have faith that all things work together for good, then Preterism becomes just a pretentious word for religious separatists who desire to espouse that they are correct and everyone else is not. So the question, is this doing all for the glory of God? If nothing else, they at least have studied and divided the Word of God better than most other eschatologies. As Paul states, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Live soberly, righteously, and in good faith with your fellow sibling in the Lord.


Date:
04 Aug 2002
Time:
20:55:06

Comments

I was raised in the protestant (baptist, church of christ, etc.) church hearing that we would be raptured, the beast is coming, blah blah blah. After years of this, wondering what 'event' would mark the beginning of the tribulation, etc etc, I began to read the scriptures for myself. I never could understand how dispensationalists pulled some of the things they did out of the book of revelation. After a lot of study of the materials on this website AND reading my bible, I came to the conclusion that for me, dispensationalism is mighty hard to prove. More importantly, preterism (I'm not sure if I'm partial or total yet, maybe I'm more Preterist Lite or something) glorifies Jesus Christ and places a greater emphasis on the degree of salvation available to us today than the other viewpoints. I can't see that being a preterist would make one go to hell, as long as you have received Jesus; rather it would make you realize that we as christians have a tremendous responsibility to live up to what our Lord wrought for us. Hey, after all, isn't he expecting his enemies be made his footstool?


Date:
03 Nov 2002
Time:
17:19:02

Comments

I must admit to being confused about the issue of the resurrection, since the resurrection, in scripture is so closely related to the second coming of Christ. I was more or less convinced of the (partial) preterist position by DeMar's Last Day's Madness. I then read the Parousa by Russell. And that is why I am confused. Russell certainly puts forth a good argument for why you cannot separate these two events. Now I don't know what to believe or who to trust. The hyper or full preterist seem strange to me and much of what they put forth is totally unorthodox especially with regard to the resurrection. I do like John L. Bray.


Date:
19 Nov 2002
Time:
08:04:02

Comments

Amen


Date:
29 Nov 2002
Time:
10:09:49

Comments

A preterist view or a futurist view is not going to doom anyone to hell. The only thing that does that is the rejection of Jesus Christ our Lord. The demand to believe anything other than what I've stated above is a fear tactic to preserve power and authority.


Date:
03 Dec 2002
Time:
15:50:04

Comments

when studing the New Testament and discovering that the New Jerusalem was the New Covenant and that the elements burning in 2nd Peter were not the earth but the rudiments, same meaning and many other scriptures taken as they are written, I became a ful preterist, which you understand I was one of those who rerad the Bible according to Hal Lindsey. I did pray for disceerment and was rewared by God for my search, One of these days the time for peverting the scriptures is going to run out and where will that leave the people who beleived the lies. I am one of the blessed. It freed me and my family, I still have much to learn and I offen people when they ask it I think the rapture is close----Thank you for the web site, there is little out side of them. If that makes me a heritic, God knows my heart,


Date:
12 Dec 2002
Time:
17:34:55

Comments

All the willful caricatures, ad hominen abusives, temper tantrums, and rhetorical animosity aside, it seems to me that much of the impassioned debate between partial preterists and full preterists could be improved by clarifying a few key issues. To wit:

(1) Partial preterists are fond of claiming (often in the most pompous and venomous tones)that "hyper-preterism/pantelism" is heresy. But what exactly is heresy? A precise definition would be nice, grounded in Scripture, as well as an explanation as to how the doctrines of full preterism meet the criteria for genuine heresy. Otherwise, such accusations simply amount to venting frustration, if not bearing false witness against one's neighbor.

(2) Many partial preterists vehemently insist that consistent preterism constitutes a denial of the gospel. But how, praytell, is this the case? What consistent preterist of any repute has ever denied the sufficiency of Christ's work of atonement for the salvation of sinners, justification by faith alone, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believing sinner, the deity of Christ, etc.? Once again, apart from specifically demonstrating this putative departure from the gospel, such rantings amount to nothing more than blowing hot air.

(3) Full preterism is far from a monolithic movement. Relative to the entire sweep of church history, it is in its infancy. Picking the worst examples of biblical exegesis from self-professed full preterists and then condemning the entire movement on the basis of such admittedly erroneous (and sometimes downright silly) interpretations does nothing to refute the more well-argued, nuanced, and biblically faithful versions of full preterism.

(4) The fact of the matter is that unlike Christology, soteriology, the doctrine of the sacraments, etc., eschatology, until relatively recently, has not received a thorough, systematic treatment by the church as a whole, nor has an ecumenical council or major assembly ever met to hammer out such issues in detail. Therefore, it is simply unfair to insist that the relative paucity and sparcity of creedal and confessional remarks about eschatology penned during church history be allowed to rule out, in principle, a consistent preterist reading of Scripture. System-driven rather than expositional views of biblical doctrine are bound to result in contrived and ad hoc hermeneutical practices. I suspect that much of the tenacious resistance to consistent preterist readings of the Bible stems from a fear of having to relinquish cherished eschatological views, rather than giving the best and most plausible accounts of full preterism a fair hearing. Finally,

(5) A basic distinction needs to be made between the issue of the timing and nature of Christ's return and the issue of the nature of the resurrection body. The belief that the only parousia described in Scripture happened in 70 A.D. is essential to full preterism, whereas a particular view as to the precise nature of the resurrection body, at least as far as I can see, is not. In any case, all for now. Matthew Power


Date:
13 Dec 2002
Time:
12:12:55

Comments

Imagine the Sovereign God, for nearly 2000 years failing to bring his full preterist church to maturity. But wait, now it seems He has finally revived His otherwise spotless bride! Yes, the long awaited truth (brought to maturity by that famous prophet Russell) is triumphing over all those terrible years of confusion! Hooray for preterism!

We have solved the problem of hope-because we don't need it! That's for "weaklings and pessimists"! Can't you all just see?! Jesus came already, and you're already resurrected, judged, and rewarded! Isn't it evident! C'mon, just say it's so and it will be so! You then can take the "high ground" and say you actually believe the "clear" meanings of scripture at face value! Forget about 1900 years of church history, they must have been idiots for missing what now is so obvious! Now let's get on with searching for more like-minded friends and evidence to substantiate what we would like to believe, then the world will be a better place, oh yeah, for Jesus and all that of course.

If you think this caricature is far fetched, check again. Start with the conclusions of the preterist system, then work backwards, and you will see just how selective and arbitrary the "logic" really is. Funny how most of the neo-preterists were once following a different heresy, dispensationalism. Coincidence? Hardly. Folks who like topical books over natural exegesis usually fall into eisegetical traps. Preterism is no different. Why, when renouncing one falsehood must you swing all the way over to the next extreme? Look at all the time and resource you are tossing aside while mimmicking someone's system? Do you actually believe the Truth to be referred to as an -ism?

Not even calvinism (which is true soteriology) is a just title for the religion of the Son of God. No little sub-niche can neatly package the whole truth of Him "who was, who is, and is to come." Think about the tragic reduction that you undertake to inflict by forcing the eternal Savior into your preterist niche. Just as bad as the dispensationalist. Sad.


Date:
16 Dec 2002
Time:
19:33:33

Comments

Several comments seem appropriate given the rather strong condemnation of so-called "hyper-preterism" presented here.

 (1) The constant appeal to "God's Inspired and Infallible Word" does nothing to prove their case and thus amounts to little more than high-handed and bombastic rhetoric. (One wonders if those who wrote this declaration were taking their cues from the Council of Trent.) Similarly, the assertion that full preterism constitutes a "satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith" is drastically overstated and even comical. How exactly is it that Satan is supposed to be using "hyper-preterism" to lead people away from faith in Jesus Christ? And what ecumenical council has ever addressed eschatological issues in any depth, such that a given view can be said to be part of the "holy catholic faith" and others categorically excluded?

(2) The claim is made that full preterists deny that there is a physical resurrection of the body. Perhaps some on the fringe of the movement do, but such a view does not constitute a majority view within full preterism. Moreover, there is nothing inherent in full preterism that makes such an abberrant view a necessary component of it.

(3)Yes, full preterists maintain that the parousia of Christ is past, just as Scripture does. However, apart from an explanation as to why this belief undermines orthodoxy, condemning full preterists for holding it seems both unwise and premature. Moreover, the authors of this document seem simply to presuppose that the "end of the age" referred to in the New Testament is the end of human history rather than the end of the Old Covenant era. But unwarranted presuppositions will not do--if their condemnation is to have any bite whatsoever, it is incumbent upon them to provide sound arguments for that contention.

(4) It is said by the authors that full preterists claim there is no future Great White Throne Judgment. Well, that all depends on what one means by that statement. If one means that full preterists deny that a corporate resurrection of all human beings who have ever lived will take place on this planet sometime in its future history, then yes, they do deny it. However, full preterists do not deny that all people who have ever lived will be judged by Christ in the future (from their time-bound perspective). It's just that this judgment will take place in a space-time continuum that is partly incommensurate with the one in which we currently reside. It is not that full preterists believe that the Final Judgment literally occurred in 70 A.D. (that would be rather silly), but that Jesus' judgment of apostate Judaism at that time in history signalled a parallel, universal judgment in eternity to which all men will be subjected.

(5) The rather caustic and incendiary pronouncement of "anathema" against those who subscribe to full preterism is uncharitable, off the mark, and ultimately just plain lame. It is uncharitable because it fails to heed Paul's admonition to deal gently with those who are captive to the Devil's snare (2 Ti. 2:25-26). If the rejoinder is made that full preterists are in the same category as those Paul, Peter and Jude condemn in Galatians, 2 Peter and Jude, respectively, then arguments had better be forthcoming that there is an appropriate parallel between these two groups of false teachers. It is off the mark because the fact of the matter is that even if full preterist eschatology is erroneous, it does not act to subvert the biblical gospel of grace. Anathemas are appropriate for those who deny such core elements of the gospel as the deity of Christ, the sufficiency of His atonement for reconciliation with a holy God, justification by faith alone, etc. They are terribly misplaced, however, when directed toward those who challenge the status quo in the realm of eschatology. What will the RCUS come up with next--the anathematization of those who question Pauline authorship of Hebrews? Finally, it is lame because it substitutes inflammatory rhetoric for substantive theological argument and careful biblical exegesis. My suggestion to those who wrote this document is that you think long and hard in the future before you blast fellow believers in Christ simply because they disagree with you, in good conscience, about doctrinal matters that, while certainly important, are not salvation issues (Mt. 5:21-22). May the Lord grant you repentance for your knee-jerk, ill-informed condemnation of godly Christians (Jas. 1:19).


Date:
20 Dec 2002
Time:
08:57:12

Comments

Oh yeah, another reason preterism is "conclusively" wrong and dangerous is the fact that a special guru is always necessary to explain away the plethora of future/hope oriented passages. First, you need the comforts of western living to afford the time to argue about such things, then the anointed guru to fashion a clever system. Think about it. In what period of church persecution were they quibbling over the parousia? Preterism is a system designed by hireling "servants" to end the debate, but has revealed a deeper problem in the mental religion of psuedo-intellectuals. Every famous cult requires a guru to interpret reality for its subjects, full preterism is no different.


Date:
12 Jan 2003
Time:
15:22:11

Comments

On Mar. 11, 2002, someone wrote, "It gives me great grief to hear so many Christians. from Orthodoxy to Restorationism to Roman Catholicism admit that Jesus and the Apostle DID indeed teach what is basically outlined in the Preterist view, and then say, BUT NOTHING HAPPENED. I can't be baptized unless I give it up. I can't take communion unless I am baptized. And there is no Preterist Church. Stranded and wishing for my own personal end." I suggest he look at the churches of Christ. To be sure, there are many who oppose preterism in these churches, but there are also many who accept it.

 Darryl Trapp Amarillo, TX


Date:
03 Mar 2003
Time:
19:50:12

Comments

I was originally attracted by Max King and J. S. Russell, but subsequently rejected their view that 70 AD exhaustively fulfills NT prophecy. Personally, I have come to conclude that the main error of "hyper-preterism" is based on the common failure to recognize the theological significance of the biblical (and ancient Jewish) view of Israel's temple as a "microcosm" (i.e., the cosmos in miniature), which implies that the cosmos itself was seen as a "macro-temple" (see Ps 104, Job 38).

Accordingly, the divinely decreed destruction of the Jerusalem (microcosmic) temple was itself a typological event, one that foreshadows the future destruction of the cosmos (i.e., as macro-temple). The destruction of the Jerusalem temple is thus a true -- but partial -- fulfillment, which implies a partial non-fulfillment, thus pointing to a still greater fulfillment in the future, when the cosmos undergoes the same divinely decreed destruction as the Jerusalem temple.

An integral interpretation of NT prophetic texts is rooted in the scriptural view of creation, set forth in terms of temple typology (see Hebrews 9:1-12). What happens to the temple must eventually happen to the cosmos; the resurrected body of Christ is the New Temple, which will be fully manifested in glory only when the old cosmos undergoes the same transformative judgement of God, thus bringing forth a New Creation -- which the Apocalypse rightly describes as the Divine Temple (Rev. 11:18ff) of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:22). At least that's how I understand what our Lord is teaching His Church. In the mean time, keep up the good work...

Yours in Christ, Scott Hahn


Scott, Many thanks for posting.  It is great to hear from you.

As a hyper-pret, I would suggest that the macro-temple view should not look to the outward for fulfillment - as the fulness of the shadows and types of the Word do not rest in the temporal realm.  Paul reveals multiple times that we should only look at the temporal as the shadow of the eternal/spiritual (i.e. invisible) reality (II Cor 5:4, I Cor 15:46). 

Though examples of this "macro-hermeneutic" are a thousand thousand, perhaps the best example is the bodily, physical resurrection of Jesus. 

The raising of the fleshly body was manifested to the world as the super-sign of that spiritually everlasting acceptance into the Heavenly Kingdom of God and Christ. 

Accordingly, we should not be looking forward to a bodily, physical resurrection, as He has already completed that sign.   There is no need for our bodies to be raised physically, as the outer manifestations found fulfillment at the end of the Mosaic age.  Now, we are born to new life when redeemed.  We are "further clothed" with that spiritual tabernacle when born of the Spirit.  This is why Christ can say with all confidence: 'He who lives and believes in me will never die.  Do you believe this?'

According to this same method, we should not expect another outward temporal apocalypse to extend beyond the Jewish age.  Instead, the Day of the Lord is upon all the proud and haughty in a spiritual manner under the administration of the Gospel.  To put it another way, the game has shifted to another field.  Our weapons are spiritual in nature, because natural ones are no longer an effective part of the contest (part of the reason the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church).

Only by placing apocalypse and total victorious conquest in the past can we look forward to the glories of the present and especially those awaiting the earth in its return to an "Edenic state".  As many partial preterists point out, the earth and its inhabitants have enjoyed unparalleled development in every field in the time since Christ.  This is a trend that will not only continue, but become more pronounced as the scales start to tip.

There is no losing left in the future.  All has been won.  Only the reluctance of Christians to seize upon the victory prevents spiritual administration on earth, as it is in heaven.  The Kingdom has come, and its increase will never end (Isa 9:7), breaking in pieces the administration of the flesh (Dan 2:44). 

Now is the time to get back to the fields for planting and watering in support of His irresistible advance..

Your Servant, Todd Dennis 


Date:
06 Mar 2003
Time:
11:45:28

Comments

If anyone has read Max King's "The Spirit of Prophecy," you know that while he may be a Chruch of Christ preacher, he is far outside mainstram Church of Christ teaching and is considered an "erring brother" by most of the churches of Christ. His book did start me on the path to a preterist belief--full of partial I don't know. It also brought me out of the mainstram Church of Christ. James


Date:
24 May 2003
Time:
00:40:25

Comments

Regarding the anathema of the Reformed Church of the United States: I believe that though the words are harsh and may therefore become unprofitable I must agree with the precepts. There is a drastic lack of system thinking in the theological systems that many today espouse. Certain systematic failures can occur when just the simplest element of error can creep in. In the system of a car the removal of just one important part or its distortion can prevent the car from running. In the same way a system of theology that leaves no future prophecies, or that insists that we are living in the millenium can cause severse systematic failures throughout the entire theological system. I doubt that the Reformed Church's anathema holds any infallible binding in heaven or on earth though, but it does provide me with a chuckle. regards, Jamie Morien


Date:
29 May 2003
Time:
16:46:50

Comments

Oh yeah, another reason preterism is "conclusively" wrong and dangerous is the fact that a special guru is always necessary to explain away the plethora of future/hope oriented passages. First, you need the comforts of western living to afford the time to argue about such things, then the anointed guru to fashion a clever system. Think about it. In what period of church persecution were they quibbling over the parousia? Preterism is a system designed by hireling "servants" to end the debate, but has revealed a deeper problem in the mental religion of psuedo-intellectuals. Every famous cult requires a guru to interpret reality for its subjects, full preterism is no different.


Date:
05 Jun 2003
Time:
11:20:57

Comments

Todd, While I have not been excommunicated outright, I have had difficulty fitting in. At the last church I attended, shortly before I left, it was pointed out to me by the pastor that the church's mission was to carry out the great comission. To save the lost from eternal torment. If I did not believe in a future judgement, then what was the point of my being there? If I believed the great comission is already fulfilled, how could I buy into the vision of my church? This led me to wonder if the foundation of the faith of most mainstream Christians is Jesus or judgement and eternal punishment. The futurist perspective of mainstream Christians colors the way they understand anything else about God, and their motivation for believing and sharing that faith with others. I am acutely aware that my belief in realized eschatology gives me a totally different perspective on spiritual matters. I don't fit. Friends have told me that others have told them not to listen to what I say. Know what? I'd rather believe the truth. I got into this relationship with God to know Him better, and if my fellow Christians don't like what I find out about Him or his plan, I'm certainly not going to throw my Bible away and start believing what someone else approves as "spritually correct".


Date:
11 Aug 2003
Time:
11:17:43

Comments

Just amused by something. Throughout the early years of my conversion, I would, of course, accept and believe in everything that my church taught me. "This is the last generation" teaching was heard almost all the time.

This is basically what I was taught - First the rapture, then the seven year tribulation along with the rise of antichrist and his mark, the assault against Jerusalem, then the return of Jesus with his saints to destroy the beasts army, the binding of satan and rule of the saints for a thousand years ....etc, until God himself comes down from heaven with the New City to a completely righteous and RENOVATED earth in which evil, sin and death are totally destroyed. So what amused me?

The point where I stopped reading what they read! If you read further in Revelation right to the end, you will find that after the so-called perfect earth there's still a healing being brought to those who are invited to enter the New Jerusalem.

Who's Blueprint are we really following?

Glen


Date:
05 Nov 2003
Time:
14:24:12

Comments

I would probably say that the Reformed church was right in this position. Because the teachings of preterism clearly go against Scripture, they deny our hope of resurrection, claim a present-day New heaven and New earth, and as even your own site says, "Simply put, Preterist theology is a radical departure from other contemporary positions. How many other systems teach that the second coming of Christ already took place: none" As Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, says on his website: " In theology, if it's new, it probably isn't true."


Date:
24 Nov 2003
Time:
18:28:12

Comments

Oh yea, well I hereby excommunicate the Western Classis :^P But seriously, does anyone care what these people say? So don't sweat it folks. I had to resign my teaching position at an E. Free church, and I have a friend who was for all intents and purposes excommunicated from a disp. church - so we've all had to deal a bit. Suck it up my fellow Prets. it will probably get worse before it gets better, but the truth will win in the end and if the worse thing that happens is that we end up with (yet another) denomination then so be it. Stay focused, rejoice always, and LOVE YOUR RCUS BRETHREN (even if they hate your Hymenaean guts :^) - erick


Date:
08 Feb 2004
Time:
11:26:36

Comments

Of Course the Good News or the Gospel is not the resurrection, but rather that Christ came to do away with sin, our sin, according to Daniels prophecy, "to make an end of sins, and too make reconcilation for inquity". This is the Good News, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Everything else takes second place; for if we can understand that we are dead with Christ (which is almost a lifelong venture to experince) I am sure that we will have time to understand the resurrection. But first and foremost is that we need to experince His death, His Burial & His Ressurection. I don't know a single christian anywhere who is actually dead like this. So I say, why discuss these other things that regard our Christian faith, when we have not entered into His rest and ceased from our legalistic strivings and sins? Thoughts to ponder on. God Bless my friends.


Date:
24 Feb 2004
Time:
04:47:11

Comments

Yes i believe you Bob.

You got mad at me once for asking some questions on your forum about daniel and revelations and you banned me.know this i'm sorry for our fussing,i just wanted to ask some questions. I believe you should have been easier on me. I don't believe in That preterist mess either. I'm a Old line Primitive baptist(Hardshell)or so we're called.I enjoyed your forum and the other men,and thought really well of you , until you banned me.Yeah, i got mad ,but i'm over it now.Argueing hurts my soul,it's not in our better interest to argue over Gods truth.I hope you could see my case reconsider.  Peace in Jesus Name.

Lewis Mixon


Date:
17 Sep 2004
Time:
22:05:36

Comments

My brother,in Christ,Allen Bailey (we are Primitive Baptists - of the absolutist type)gave me some of the Preterist interpretations of "escatological" scripture and it seemed so right and reasonable that, to his pleased surprise,I told him:"already, I am almost a Preterist." It's the only interpretation of those scriptures I've ever read that seem to fit. Is Frederick Farrar of your persuasion, or is he of those you pronounce anathama upon? How I could have lived 65 yrs, read so much of the early church Fathers; Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Luther, etc. - Documents of the Christian Church, Valiant for the Truth, Ecclesiastical History, etc. and many more modern of the Reformed and Soveriegn Grace persuasion, and never, I mean NEVER, came across this refreshing interpretation of escatology, if that's even the word for it, is absolutely stunning. I've known, for many years, who Abraham's seed were: " now to Abraham's seed (singular - Christ) were the promises made" and " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, etc.," which most everyone called Christian mis - interpret, so I know how ignorance can reign, but never thought anything so remarkable as Preterism could be so hidden from the Soveriegn Grace persuasion. It just blows my mind. Although an Amillinalist in persuasion, most of those scriptures always confused me. I'm going to read more of your opinions and interpretations. Thank you. God Bless. Lionel Ledbetter - primbaptpoet@yahoo.com


Date:
27 Oct 2004
Time:
06:49:10

Comments

i'm not quite sure i understand what all the fuss is about full preterism believes in salvation by grace, ressurection to be with christ (although in a different process??)?? or is preterism supporting unniversalism or annhilism.. imo unniversalism might be a significant difference to really matter, but the others don't appear so.. someone enlighten me.


Date:
06 Jan 2005
Time:
12:36:32

Comments

One's views on eschatology does matter for salvation . One must believe in the "correct" Jesus Christ . Which Jesus Christ do you have faith in ? Is it the Jesus Christ who came in His glory in the first century , or is it the Jesus Christ who is still "coming soon"? The scriptures are plain. Search the scriptures . Think "original audience relevence", for starters.


Date: 03 Oct 2005
Time: 13:43:41

Comments0:

Here wait, let me try...

Whereas:

The Reformed Church in the United States is hard pressed to identify any place in the bible where the “resurrection of the body” is stated explicitly or even implied unless a decidedly futurist bias is preemptively posited.


The Reformed Church in the United States doesn’t seem to get that the “hyperpreterists” are only Hymenaeans if the “hyperpreterist” is wrong in his understanding of history, otherwise he’s just a “hyperpreterist”.

The Reformed Church in the United States apparently implicitly redefines “orthodoxy” as what they currently believe with no obvious concern for the teachings and understanding of the topic by the early church and the early church fathers.

Whereas the overature of the Reformed Church in the United States in their indictment of full preterists as enemies of Christ could constitutes a fine case of the pot calling the kettle black if their futurist views are indeed wrong.


Date: 21 Jun 2009
Time: 21:09:35

Your Comments:

as far as i know, hyperpreterist condemn the hymenaean heresy as well, so what is the problem?


Date: 19 Aug 2009
Time: 11:26:45

Your Comments:

I think the Bible does show us many previews of things to come but are just that previews, and have not yet come to a fullness or completion until the final advent of the Lord Jesus Christ. Gods mercy allows more souls to be saved and us more time to prepare for a HEAVENLY "World without End"

 


Date: 18 Sep 2009
Time: 02:20:00

Your Comments:

Shame on the so-called "Spiritual Council".

They should standing with the Lord Jesus Christ, declaring that He told the truth when He promised to come in judgment within the lifetime of His First Century disciples, remove the covenant from Israel after the flesh, and bring the Wrath of the Lamb upon the once-beloved Holy City.

The hatred for consistent preterists is evil, inspired by the same religious politics used by the Chief Priest against the Apostles of Century 1, and destined to cause many religious politicians to lose their eternal reward.


Paul Richard Strange Sr
119 Marvin Gardens
dadprs@hotmail.com
Waxahachie TEXAS 75165

972-937-7129
 


Date: 20 Aug 2010
Time: 02:04:44

Your Comments:

Jesus had not yet come again when Hymenaeus and Philetus made that claim. One cannot use this as an example of why preterism is wrong for obvious reasons. Jesus clearly taught of His coming within the generation of His contemporaries, and the apostles all wrote of His imminent return. If Jesus and the apostles were wrong, then what else were they wrong about?


 


Date: 10 Dec 2010
Time: 02:12:55

Your Comments:

If Hymenaeus and Philetus were preaching that a physical resurrection had already occurred in their time, they couldn't possibly have expected anyone to believe them. Any reasonable expectation of belief from those who heard their teaching would have to be based on the expectation of a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection, otherwise the evidence (or lack thereof) would be plainly obvious. Hymenaeus and Philetus, rather, knew that the expectation among believers was for a spiritual resurrection. Hymenaeus and Philetus's teaching was incorrect because Jesus had not yet returned at that time and the resurrection, being tied to his return, could not then have occurred yet. With Christ's spiritual parousia in AD 70 being the Preterist belief, it is not possible to say they are Hymenaean since Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that it had occurred long before AD 70.

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com