PRET ARCHIVE WWW

Crosswalk Bible Study Tools Words/Verses: Located Where: Whole Bible-----------------------Old TestamentNew Testament----------------------Books of LawBooks of HistoryBooks of WisdomMajor ProphetsMinor ProphetsThe GospelsPauline EpistlesGeneral EpistlesApocalyptic Books  Which Version:  The New American Standard BibleThe American Standard VersionThe New King James VersionThe King James Version (Authorized)Third Millennium BibleThe New Living TranslationThe New Revised Standard VersionThe Revised Standard VersionThe Good News Bible in Today's English VersionThe Douay-Rheims BibleThe KJV Strong's VersionThe NAS Strong's VersionNew Century VersionGOD'S WORDWorld English BibleThe Bible in Basic EnglishThe Darby TranslationHebrew Names Version of World English Bible Webster's Bible TranslationThe Latin VulgateYoung's Literal TranslationWesley's New Testament   Tools!         HELP / OT Tools |NT Tools Tools: WWSB | Google Books | TexCrit | Vine's | Gk-Lex-Alts-Vars | Aramaic-Lex-Lex2 | Gk/Hb Font | X-late | HYPERpreteristarchive.com

Website Color Key Preterist Charts

Historical Preterism Study Archive EARLY CHURCH Andreas Arethas Caesarea Aphrahat St. Athanasius Augustine Barnabus Pseudo-Baruch Venerable Bede Chrysostom Pseudo-Chrysostom Clement Alexandria Clement of Rome Pseudo-Clementines Cyprian Ephraem Epiphanes Eusebius Gregory Hegesippus Hippolytus Ignatius Irenaeus James Jerome King Jesus Apostle John Lactantius Luke Mark Justin Martyr Mathetes Matthew Melito of Sardis Oecumenius Origen Apostle Paul Apostle Peter "Solomon" Sulpicius Severus Tertullian Victorinus HISTORICAL PRETERISM (Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past) Joseph Addison Oswald T. Allis Karl Auberlen Thomas Aquinas Augustine Albert Barnes Karl Barth G.K. Beale Beasley-Murray John Bengel John A. Broadus David Brown "Haddington Brown" F.F. Bruce John Calvin B.H. Carroll Vern Crisler Philip Doddridge Isaak Dorner Dutch Annotators Alfred Edersheim Jonathan Edwards Patrick Fairbairn James Farquharson A.R. Fausset Robert Fleming Geneva Bible John Gill W.B. Godbey Ezra Gould Steve Gregg Hank Hanegraaff Hengstenberg Matthew Henry G.A. Henty George Holford William Hurte J, F, and Brown B.W. Johnson Dr. Jortin Benjamin Keach K.F. Keil Henry Kett Johann Lange Nathaniel Lardner Jean Le Clerc Peter Leithart Jack P. Lewis Abiel Livermore John Locke Martin Luther Dave MacPherson James MacDonald James MacKnight 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 Maurus Rabanus St. Remigius Anne Rice J.C. Robertson Edward Robinson Andrew Sandlin Johann Schabalie Philip Schaff Thomas Scott C.J. Seraiah Daniel Smith C.H. Spurgeon Rudolph E. Stier A.H. Strong St. Symeon Theophylact Friedrich Tholuck James Ussher Wm Warburton Benjamin Warfield Noah Webster John Wesley B.F. Westcott Weymouth William Whiston N.T. Wright John Wycliffe

Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism (TAAHP) By Paul Manata   Hyper-Preterism, as a doctrinal position, undermines itself. Hyper-Preterism cannot argue that their position is the true teaching of the Bible contrary to other eschatalogical systems, without destroying their position at the same time. This paper shall seek to show that Hyper-Preterism, as a contradictory view to other views, ends up opposing itself! The reason is because Hyper-Preterism cannot provide the transcendentals necessary for even asking if it is true. This argument will only be a brief version of the Transcendental Argument Against Hyper-Preterism (hereafter, TAAHP). A more robust version is waiting to be written for publication at a few websites. My purpose for writing this argument out for the members of "Puritan Board" is to get some of you accustomed to the basic contours of this devastating critique. Once the gist of the argument is comprehended you can tweak it and add more to it. My goal is that this argument will spread like wildfire, and be used by God to defeat the Hyper-Preterists (hereafter, HP). Before I lay out the general program of TAAHP we can start by briefly defining Transcendnetal Arguments (hereafter, TA) in general, and also give a brief history and definition of HP. I shall begin with the former. Transcendental arguments have a distinguished history. We can find them (in a rougher version) in the writings of Aristotle when he argued for the laws of logic. Elements of TA thinking can be found in Augustine when he argued that faith is the foundation for reason. TAs came to the forefront of philosophical argumentation with Immanuel Kant. Since Kant, they have been employed by philosophers as a way to answer the skeptic. These philosophers include Wittgenstein, Stoud, and P.F. Strawson. As Christians we can use transcendental argumentation to prove Christianity. Cornelius Van Til provided a valuable service to the Christian community when he took what philosophers like Kant did and put TAs into a Christian worldview. But what is a transcendental argument? Since I assume that most of the members of the board are familiar with TAs I will only briefly explain. TAs prove something by arguing from the impossibility of the contrary. That is, they take an argument (or fact) and seek to find what must be presupposed in order to make the argument (or fact) intelligible (i.e., make sense). Proponents of TAs rightly recognize that arguments and facts are not brute. That is to say, facts are not uninterpreted. Any fact must be understood within a broader "philosophy of fact." Put differently, if I were to say that milk costs $2.35 I would be saying (or presupposing) many of things. For example: the reliability of my senses, the existence and reality of numbers and their relation to the world, the difference between milk and beer, causal ideas such as, milk comes from cows, then we could move into knowledge of animals, utters and such. Well, we can see that this can get pretty tricky so I will assume that the point has been made; i.e., beliefs are tied into other beliefs in order to make the asserted belief intelligible. We can see that beliefs require other beliefs then. Now, if another belief conflicted with what was being asserted we would say that that persons system of beliefs rendered itself unintelligible. For example, let's go back to the milk. Now, if someone asserted that milk costs $2.35 at the local store but also held that his senses were unreliable, we could say that his belief that milk costs $2.35 was epistemologically unjustified. That is, he couldn't know it. We would say, as presuppositionalists, that his system of beliefs do not provide the pre-conditions for the intelligibility (or make sense of) the price of milk at the local store. Thus, we can see that TAs are broad in scope. that is, they take any piece of expierience and seek to show what system of beliefs (or worldview) would need to be presupposed in order to make sense out of the particular experience in question. This, in a nutshell, is the transcendental program. Having said that, before we offer TAAHP let us briefly look at what HP claims. Hyper-Preterism is the belief that all eschatalogical prophacy has been fulfilled. Though I have noticed that there is disagreement between them as to what counts as an eschatological prophacy we can sum up their position by stating the basic things HPs are in agreement on. Firstly, they believe that the second comming has already taken place. This second comming occured at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This idea is based of time texts in Scipture. For example, Mathew 24 states that "truly, I say to you; this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (v. 34). And, I Peter 4:7 reads, "The end of all things is at hand." The HP will say that we must take these time texts (i.e., this generation, at hand, etc.,) seriously. They say "Don't you think that God knows how to tell time?" Secondly, HPs agree that the resurrection has already taken place. The idea of a future phisical resurrection has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last two thousand years. Instead it is thought that   quote: Whereas the Reformed position teaches a physical resurrection of saints, Preterists agree with Paul, that "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (I Cor. 15:44; cf. John 3:6). Preterists believe that Jesus Christ was physically raised in His resurrection, but that we spiritually ride in Him as our "ark" of resurrection. The spiritual nature of the general resurrection is, probably, the main factor that precludes Preterism from being absorbed into any other denominational position, unlike partial Preterism, which is conformable to nearly all. Simply put, Preterist theology is a radical departure from other contemporary positions.   Simply put, the resurrection is spiritual in nature, similar to our understanding of regeneration.  Thirdly, HPs believe that we are in the New Heavens and Earth (hereafter, NH and E) right now. Again, this is spiritual. Heavens and earth represent covenant relationship with God. The old covenant is called the old heavens and earth the new covenant is called the NH and E. They say that with the passing of the law and the old covenant we are now in the NH and E. That is, we are living in new covenant (as opposed to old covenant) times. Hyper-Preterist Don Preston writes:   quote: What have we seen in this little tract? We have seen that heaven and earth had to pass away before the Old Law could pass away! We have defined "heaven and earth" as the Old Covenant world of Old Israel. We have seen that instead of predicting the destruction of physical heaven and earth the Bible predicted the passing of Old Israel's world in order for God to create the New World of his Son-the Kingdom of God-the church of the living God. We have seen that the Bible very clearly tells when ALL prophecy was to be fulfilled--when heaven and earth would pass--in 70 AD with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, the very heart and core of Israel's world. We have examined several objections and found them to be based upon false suppositions. We have seen that if the Old Covenant has been abrogated then ALL OF ITS PROPHECIES INCLUDING THE PREDICTIONS OF THE "END" MUST BE FULFILLED OR ABROGATED. IF THOSE PROPHECIES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED THEN THE OLD COVENANT STILL STANDS! We have seen that the Old Law could not pass until it had fulfilled its purpose and that purpose included deliverance to the New Covenant--that was not fulfilled until all the New Covenant was revealed and confirmed. That simply did not happen at the Cross or Pentecost!   Now, in a sense we are in NH and E. What we want to ask is if we are in the NH and E of Revelation 21 and 22? We will return to that question later. We can see briefly what HP believes and we will now look at the transcendental argument against it. Before I do, though, I would like to say some words about exegetical work being done to refute HP. Exegetical work is a valuable service and we have seen trememdous blows to the HP camp through various exegetical papers. I would like to think of this TA as Van Til thought of his in relation to Warfield and Machen. Van Til thought that he was firing the huge 50 ton cannons so that the ground soldiers (exegetes) could do their work. I would like to think of this TA as the nuclear bomb dropped on HP, while the exegetical work is the valuable "mopping-up" or clearing away of debris. After a neuclear bomb has been dropped the ground soldiers can freely move about and do their tasks. I shall now offer the TAAHP. The crux of the argument goes like this: If we were in the NH and E we would not be debating doctrinal issues (e.g., baptism, Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatology, etc.,). Since we are debating doctrinal issues then, we therefore cannot be in the NH and E. I will use two lines of arguments to show this. The first is that we will reach the unity of the faith in the NH and E. The second is that in the NH and E there will be no liars there, and I will attempt to show that teaching/promoting false doctrine is to lie. The unity argument is weaker since not all HPs believe that we have reached that. Some do (e.g., the HP who has been e-mailing us) so we can apply it to them. The second referrs to the NH and E which we saw that all HPs hold to. This will obviously be more devastating. (1) Argument from the unity of the faith. We are told in Ephesians 4 that:   quote: 10He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,[1] 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood,[2] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.   We can see that we have pastors and teachers for the "building up of the body" and once this body (Church) is built up we will "no longer be carried about be every wind of doctrine." This can be put into a syllogism. (1) When we reach the unity of the faith we will no longer believe any false wind of doctrine. (If orthodox Christianity is false then it is A wind of doctrine. Likewise if HP is false it is A wind of doctrine.) (2) Someone believes a wind of doctrine (by the law of contradiction). (3) Therefore, we have not reached the unity of the faith. Commenting on Ephesians Calvin writes:   quote: 13. Till we all come. Paul had already said, that by the ministry of men the church is regulated and governed, so as to attain the highest perfection. But his commendation of the ministry is now carried farther. The necessity for which he had pleaded is not confined to a single day, but continues to the end. Or, to speak more plainly, he reminds his readers that the use of the ministry is not temporal, like that of a school for children, (paidagwgi>a, Galatians 3:24,) but constant, so long as we remain in the world. Enthusiasts dream that the use of the ministry ceases as soon as we have been led to Christ. Proud men, who carry their desire of knowledge beyond what is proper, look down with contempt on the elementary instruction of childhood. But Paul maintains that we must persevere in this course till all our deficiencies are supplied; that we must make progress till death, under the teaching of Christ alone; and that we must not be ashamed to be the scholars of the church, to which Christ has committed our education.In the unity of the faith. But ought not the unity of the faith to reign among us from the very commencement? It does reign, I acknowledge, among the sons of God, but not so perfectly as to make them come together. Such is the weakness of our nature, that it is enough if every day brings some nearer to others, and all nearer to Christ. The expression, coming together, denotes that closest union to which we still aspire, and which we shall never reach, until this garment of the flesh, which is always accompanied by some remains of ignorance and weakness, shall have been laid aside.And of the knowledge of the Son of God. This clause appears to be added for the sake of explanation. It was the apostle's intention to explain what is the nature of true faith, and in what it consists; that is, when the Son of God is known. To the Son of God alone faith ought to look; on him it relies; in him it rests and terminates. If it proceed farther, it will disappear, and will no longer be faith, but a delusion. Let us remember, that true faith confines its view so entirely to Christ, that it neither knows, nor desires to know, anything else.Into a perfect man. This must be read in immediate connection with what goes before; as if he had said, "What is the highest perfection of Christians? How is that perfection attained?" Full manhood is found in Christ; for foolish men do not, in a proper manner, seek their perfection in Christ. It ought to be held as a fixed principle among us, that all that is out of Christ is hurtful and destructive. Whoever is a man in Christ, is, in every respect, a perfect man.The AGE of fullness means -- full or mature age. No mention is made of old age, for in the Christian progress no place for it is found. Whatever becomes old has a tendency to decay; but the vigor of this spiritual life is continually advancing.   We can ask, when will we all come together with one voice and worship Jesus? In Revelations 22: 3 tells us that in the NH and E only believers will be there with nothing accursed, and they will ALL worship him. Now, two possible objections that have been put forth by HPs is that, "debating doctrinal issues does not divide the body." And, "Eph. 4 is only talking about one type of doctrinal dispute." The Bible militates against this. Firstly, in Ephersians 4 we are told that when we reach unity we will not be carried about by every wind of doctrine. You see, it is not just ONE type of doctrine, but ALL false doctrines. As far as the second objection goes, I Corinthians 1:10 states that:   quote: 10I appeal to you, brothers,[1] by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.   Notice how it states that there be "no divisions", and that "all of you agree." We can then counter this objection by a syllogism. (1) ALL debating divides the body (proven by I Cor. 1:10, thus, true). (2) We are debating (obvious, thus, true). (3) Thereofre, the body is divided (sound argument). (Note: I take this approach because most HPs believe that we are in the same body, even though I do not. The point still stands.) In light of this, we can ask if HP is true and we have reached the unity of the faith which happens in the NH and E (cf. Calvin and Rev.), then why are we debating about whether HP is true or not. Deabating about whether HP is true or not presupposes that HP is not true. Thus, HP borrows from the orthodox worldview in order to argue against the orthodox worldview! (2) Argument from the NH and E-no Liars there. In Revelation 21:8 we read:   quote: 8But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."   and in Rev. 21:27 we read:   quote: 27 and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb's book of life.   I will be arguing that teaching/promoting false doctrine is nothing short of lying. Since there will be no liars in the NH and E it couldn't be the case that there are contradictory doctrines floating around. Therefore, if we were in the NH and E no one would be teaching false doctrines (i.e., lying)! Stated another way, when the HP argues for the truth of his position over-against the truth of contradictory positions, he has presupposed that liars (i.e., teachers of false doctrine) can be in the NH and E. Now, of course the HP has rebuttals to this since they seek to preserve their supression of the truth (cf. Rom 1). We will examine the rebuttals that have been given to me and we shall find them wanting. objection 1: "The definition of lie is to consciously tell a non-truth." This is true that this is ONE definition of lie, but it is not exhaustive. Furthermore, the Bible defines it differently. Psalms 58:3 states   quote: Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.   Now, how could a infant knowingly tell a non-truth? Also, Romans 3:4 states, "Let God be true though all men are liars." Does this mean that ALL men purposely tell non-truths? doubtful. Rather it speakes of God as the ultimate authority and His word as the standard. If He is denied you can be called a liar. objection 2: "Teaching false doctrine is not lying." Oh really? Prov.30:6 states:   quote: 6Do not add to his words, lets he rebuke you and you be found a liar.   Now, since the Bible only teaches ONE truth anything that we teach that is not the one revealed truth is adding to what the Bible says. For example, if I am wrong about paedobaptism then when I teach or explain it I am adding to what the Bible teaches about baptism, thus I lie. Likewise, based on the law of non-contradiction, either HP or orthodox Christianity is lying. I John 2:4 teaches us that:   quote: The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.   You see, anti-nomian teaching is called lying. Teaching a warped view of, "we are under grace not law" is to teach a lie! Furthermore, look at all the passages which call false prophets liars. These people taught false doctrines and were condemned as liars by Jehovah. Some verses are: Ez. 22:28, Jer 28:15, Jer 27:16. Therefore, we can see that the Bible plainly and authoritatively states that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying. We saw in Rev. 21 that there will be no liars there, and that no one who maketh a lie will be there. objection 3: "This is talking about the Jews who denied Christ." This cannot be the case for it falls into seriouse reductio ad absurdems: Really, only the jews? So you are saying that we can teach the most blatent hersies in the NH and E? If it is only the Jews, who denied Christ, then what about Prov. 30:6? Are you saying that those liars can be in the NH and E? Also, Revelation teaches that ALL liars will not be there. It does not say that only one kind of liar will not be there. Furthermore, if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E (unless he says that only HPs are in the NH and E, that will be addressed below). We can multiply this list ad-nauseum. objection 4: "There are no liars and craftily subtle conspirators against christ in the kingdom. Though oftentimes members of that spiritual union conspire against other fellow-ministers while on earth." So we can lie to men but not to God? This is untrue, isn't it? If you remember that when David sinned he said that he had not sinned against man but rather God. Based on that how could someone not lie (teach false doctrine)to man and not to God? Therefore, the HP has again assumed that we are not in the NH ans E in order to debate about being in the NH and E. Since I have shown that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying, and since HPs and orthodox peoples debate contradictory positions it cannot be the the case that we are in the NH and E! The TAAHP is a Kantian hammer-blow from which HP cannot recover. If orthodox Christianity were Bobby Fisher we would say, "checkmate!" Now there are a couple of last objections to overcome. (1) HP could say that, "well, fine, then only HPs are in the NH and E." The problem with that is: not all HPs agree on everything. So which HP is in the city? Furthermore, since we are finite we cannot be sure that we are 100% correct on all our doctrine, so what HP could epistemologically justify his belief that he is in the NH and E. (2) The HP will say that I have committed a fallacy of arguing against a straw man. They will say that they do not believe that there are no liars in the NH and E but rather, there are no liars in the city (cf. Rev. 22:14-15). This is fine because all my criticisms can be applied to that way out as well; just replace NH and E with city. Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well. This would be similar to saying that all X's are in California simply because I said that all X's are "outside" San Diego. "Outside" San Diego could be New York, or Africa. The point is that you cannot prove that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city simply because Revelation tells us that the liars are outside the city. The HP now can feel free to believe his heresy but he cannot argue in support of it. You see, if the HP decides to respond he proves my position. By responding the HP presupposes that his worldview is not true and orthodox Christianity is true! HP cannot provide the pre-conditions for debate about HP. It is not ironic that all non-Christian worldviews end up falling prey to I Corinthians 1:20, "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" I can now say of the HP what Dr. Greg Bahnsen said of Gordon Stein in their famous debate: "Dr. Stein, by comming to the debate you lost the debate!" Likewise, by debating, the HP assumes that there can be contradictory doctrines in the city, i.e., liars in the city. But (!) Revelation tells us that there cannot be. So the HP, who tries to be consistant with the Bible has to believe that we are not in the city (or, NH and E) in order to debate whenther or not we are in the city (or, NH and E). Thus, HP fails as a competator to orthodox Christianity! This is the TAAHP. I appreciate all those who read this and I pray God will use it to defeat the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. As I said at the beginning, this is just a short version but I am sure this was enough to get my fellow orthodox believers started in the right direction. We can conclude by saying, "what heresy is next, since this one is done!" in Christ -Paul What do YOU think ? Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com Be sure to include the article name.  They will be posted shortly upon receipt

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

06:59:29

Comments

I would say that the problem with this argument is evident in the fact that, if his argument against "hyper-preterism" is true, then the same standard should be used against the Bible. In the OT description of the "NH and E", we find that people die (Isaiah 65:17-23), but in the NT we see that there is "no death" there (Rev. 22:4). In the OT, we learn that when God is victorious, there will be a river of living/healing waters that flows into seas (Ezekiel 47:1-12; Zechariah 14:8); in the NT description of this time when the river of life flows from the throne, there is "no more sea" (Rev. 21:1). Other such examples exist, but those two suffice.

So what are we to make of this? Are we to claim that the Bible is contradictory and renounce our faith, or is it possible that we should change our understanding of what these passages mean? And if we can do such with these passages, why not with those that our critic claims "refute" "hyper-preterism"? Instead of arguing that full preterism contradicts itself, why not accept that maybe it's only the preconceptions held that contradict one another.

I should say that our friend appears to be ignoring fact that, while preterism may have its "problems" (mostly those that are imagined by people who are stuck in way way of thinking), every other view of prophecy that I have encountered has even more, more glaring problems. Those that put the Olivet discourse's fulfillment in the future make Jesus a false prophet, since all the things mentioned therein are linked directly to the temple standing in His day (Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7). Those who say that it is fulfilled but that we still await the final judgment and the resurrection do not explain how such can be the case, when the Matthew's "end of the age" parables in Matthew 13 and the "great tribulation" in Matthew 24:15-22 clearly link the great tribulation, the end of the age, and the resurrection and judgment to the issue seen in Daniel 12:1-3, in which both good and evil are raised and go on to life or punishment as seen in John 5:28, 29 and Revelation 20:11-15. Those who claim "partial fulfillment" or "double fulfillment" have no exegetical basis for doing so, except to preserve their doctrines.

Yet our author seems to ignore these problems, but instead accepts happily those who hold to such untenable views as "Orthodox Christians." Similar problems can be seen in futurist perspectives of the book of Revelation. It seems that a search for the truth is secondary, while preterist-bashing is pre-eminent in this individual's mind, and while it is OK to believe in the contradictions of "partial ("Orthodox"?) preterism or dispensationalism, when it comes to belief in full preterism, such is simply not allowed.

I will end this already lengthy post by reminding everyone that in the days of early Protestantism, it could be said that "The idea of [insert just about any "Protestant" doctrine] has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last fifteen hundred years."

K. Perkins

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

11:47:22

Comments

Good job guys. All ad-homs and not one scholarly critique.

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

11:58:57

Comments

k. perkins, just deal with all the work on the liars

Date:

26 Dec 2003

Time:

18:11:52

Comments

A ridiculous article. Christ's parousia occurred more than 1,900 years ago but unfortunately both HPs and PPs don't understand what really happened in the first century. They're unable to see that IN GOD'S EYES the end of the age of the old, natural, Christ-rejecting Israel occurred in the moment of the resurrection of Christ in the spring of AD 30, when the new, spiritual and eternal Israel (Christ and the church) was born AND that IN GOD'S EYES the end of the age of the old, natural, Christ-rejecting world occurred in the moment of the resurrection of the dead in Christ at his parousia at the end of the true first century when the new, spiritual and eternal world (the eternal dwelling place of Christ and the church on the earth, described in Rev. 21,22) was born.

The merely typifying, OT, natural Israel was born in THE SPRING (Ex. 12) and it's completely wrong to say that the fulfillment, NT, spiritual Israel was born in AUTUMN. Preterists, like mankind in general and unlike God, judge by outward appearance and since the old, natural Israel didn't disappear immediately after the new, spiritual Israel appeared at the moment of Christ's resurrection, they can't undertstand that it passed away IN GOD'S EYES in AD 30. Likewise, since the old, natural world didn't disappear immediately after the new, spiritual world appeared at the moment of Christ's parousia, they can't understand that it passed away IN GOD'S EYES in AD 96. Most preterists started out as dispensationalists and apparently they can't get over Scofield's false, satanic warning that the NT must not be "spiritualized." Very sad.

Date:

27 Dec 2003

Time:

12:43:51

Comments

Paul - the SECOND COMING in (Hebrews 9) in context is in regards to the COVENENT CHANGE. In other words the SECOND COMING and RESURRECTION were to occur at the COVENANT CHANGE when THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE was DESTROYED (Daniel 12). Not only that but there are time texts involved. He who is coming will come and will not tarry (Hebrews 10). The SECOND COMING and the resurrectioon were to occur at the COVENANT CHANGE. Game over.

Date:

27 Dec 2003

Time:

15:11:29

Comments

hmmm, interesting that you didn't touch the liars. I have posted and answered every attempt to get out of that (and I guess the exegetical midgets Calvin, Hodge, Frame, Murray, et al have all taken Eph 4 out of context! but some dude at a beach house without any theological training knows how to interpret it correctly?). Hey, Mike, don't you think you say peoples first names a bit much? Anyway, I am glad that everyone saw how you didn;t mention what I said was the strongets part of the argument. I know that you guys and your "bible study" think you have refuted it, but many other Christians think differently, (e.g. P. Andrew Sandlin, Gene Cook, Michael Butler, ect).

Date:

27 Dec 2003

Time:

15:21:54

Comments

...also, you seem very upset Mike. This usually happens when faced with an argument you don't have an answer to. BTW, I understand all the covenant-law-change-stuff. What I want to know is if you are correct why are we debating? Furthermore, your question about the puritan board should be obvious. This website ALLOWS both. Puritan board does not. That's their perogative.

Date:

28 Dec 2003

Time:

23:58:15

Comments

The below reply was posted on the other thread – “Refuting the Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism”. Seems like there are 2 concurrent sessions going on.

 To Paul of HAAHP on his reply of 27 Dec.

I did not see any explanation or your TA's view on Rev 21:27, 22:14,15 and who are the nations living outside The City. Only your argument using them but nowhere did you offer any explanation for those nations or for those who are outside The City. Not a problem if you don’t have the answer.

 I am still very puzzled by your statement (and logic) – “Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well.”

 FIRSTLY, what is there to prove? Rev 22;15 is so straightforward. You are either inside The City or outside. If you are not in New York, then you are outside of New York. It does not matter whether you are in San Diego, in Africa or in Timbuktu. In Rev 21 and Rev 22, the location in context is the NH&NE and within this NH&NE is The City of New Jerusalem. You are either inside or outside of the City.

If you are in The City, you shall not die, no tear and shall inherit all things, meaning, you are already absent from the body and present with the Lord. (In the City, there is no need to debate any doctrinal issues. God is there!)

If you are outside the City, you could still be studying and debating doctrinal issues (like Apostle Paul did in Acts 28), trying your best to understand the Words of God, to live a godly life.

But many outside The City are not like you – they do not yet confess Jesus as Savior for forgiving of their sins, and hence are still lairs and murderers. That is why we have Rev 22:14-15 admonishing us to do His commandments so that we “may enter in through the gates into The City, for without [the City] are dogs, and sorcerers, .… , and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

SECONDLY, by your own TA’s argument, you have acknowledged that there are liars in NH&NE. You have stated that “There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well.” According to your argument, all liars are in the lake of fire. And where is the lake of fire? Outside the City. And where is this City? In the New Heaven and New Earth.

Oh! BTW, I need to alert you again, that “all liars SHALL [future tense] have their part in the lake which burneth with fire” not “are in the lake already”. We all are liars and murderers. And we have our whole lifetime to confess to our Lord and to do His commandments so that we may enter in through the gates into The City.

 One common assumption that all of us made is that there shall be no more death and tears in the NH&NE. That’s not what the Bible says. Rev 21:3,4 plainly tell us that God is in that City and within that City there will be no death, no crying (Isa 65:17) – where the inhabitants shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God for the former things are passed away. It is The City that needs no Light as God is Light (not NH&NE). And because God is in The City, “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, … but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life. … For WITHOUT are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

 Isa 65:20 does not contradict Rev 21 at all if we are careful in rightly dividing the word of God - which portion of that verse apply to inside Jerusalem (Isa 65:18) and which portion apply to the NH&NE (Isa 65:17), especially when we have the benefit of Rev 21 to guide us.

Well Paul, I shall not be belaboring on this anymore. But I hope to see a Saul of you who once persecuted HP but if God be willing, make you truly into a new Paul. ==== MS Cheo.

Date:

29 Dec 2003

Time:

12:27:19

Comments

Cheo, ...and, as my paper says, you still have the same problem. If there are no liars in the city then why are people teaching/believing/promoting controdictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...in the city? If only hyper-pret's are in the city then why do they not all agree? Why do some think that you should, say, take the Lord's supper, and some do not? This could be easily multiplied. Again, since teaching false doctrine is lying then why are there people in the city who teach lies...if there are no liars there? -Paul

Date:

29 Dec 2003

Time:

19:34:34

Comments

Hi Paul, Yea, I know I had said I will not be laboring further on this. But then, it might not be in good manner of me not to reply, or brotherly of me not to point out again where I think the error might be. (See, don't we human always find justification for our actions? <ggg>)

There is no mention of any "people teaching/believing/promoting contradictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...IN the city" in Revelation or anywhere in the Bible. It is you who have insisted it to be such. Rev 21 and 22 do not say there are liars INSIDE the City, but it does say there are liars OUTSIDE The City (Rev 22:15).

As I have said, if you are in The City, you have already put on the tabernacle made without hand - you shall not die, meaning, you are already absent from the body and present with the Lord. In the City, there is no need to debate any doctrinal issues. You have attained spirituality and the knowledge of all truths. Morever, God your Father and Jesus your Lord are there!

 It is those living OUTSIDE The City, the unbelievers, and the believers like you and me now, still studying and debating doctrinal issues, trying our best to understand the Words of God, trying our best to share our understanding and to gain further understanding, trying our best to live a godly life according to His commandments.

In the Old Heaven and Earth, there was the nation of Israel, the physical Jerusalem, the physical temple and the Old Covenant. There were 2 types of people living in it then. The Hopefuls (the Jews who have the oracles of God's Commandments) and the Hopeless (gentiles [Eph 2:12]). Unfortunately, the bulk of the Hopefuls did not make the grade to enter into the Gate, except a few (some of which were mentioned in Heb 11).

In the New Heaven and New Earth, there is the nation of Spiritual Israel (1Pe 2:9), the Spiritual New Jerusalem, the Spiritual Temple (Rev 21:22) and the New Covenant. There are 2 types of people living in it now. The Hopefuls (the believers [1Pe 2:9]) and the Hopeless (the unbelievers [Act 4:12]). So, to enter into that City, where there is no Death, we are admonished to "do His commandments, that we may have right to the tree of life, and may enter IN through the gates into The City" (Rev 22:14).

 MS Cheo.

Date:

30 Dec 2003

Time:

09:11:06

Comments

Mike X.: Your first objection assumes that what you said faith is, IS the definition. Well, if this is true then you can substitiute THAT definition EVERY time the Bible says "faith." I challenge you to go through the Bible and take out the word faith and substitute it whith what you said it ALWAYS is and see what sort of conceptual headaches you end up with. Thus, your argument 1 fails. Now for argument 2. If Mike X. is correct about his interpretation we would not be debating about whether or not he is correct (since debating contradictory doctrines shows that someone is teaching a lie). we are debating about Mike X.s interpretation. Therefore, Mike Bennets interpretation is not correct. -Paul

Date:

31 Dec 2003

Time:

08:42:08

Comments

Mike, thanks for showing everyone your refusal to answer. -Paul

Date:

01 Jan 2004

Time:

12:17:24

Comments

PAUL - PLEASE READ WHAT MIKE KRALL JUST SENT ME. THIS IS A QUOTE FROM DAYS OF VENGEANCE - AND OTHER COMMENTS - WHEN CHILTON WAS A PARTIAL PRETERIST - LOL. Here it is from Days of Vengeance on Rev 14:5. Also look at some of the other comments people are making. It is hilarious. Finally, St. John says, no lie was found in their mouth, for they are blameless. It is the Dragon who is the deceiver, the false accuser, the father of the Lie (John 8:44; Rev. 12:9); God’s people are characterized by truthfulness (Eph. 4:2427). As St. Paul declared regarding the heathen, the basic Lie is idolatry: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and fourfooted animals and crawling creatures. . . . For they exchanged the Truth of God for the Lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rem. 1:2225).

At root, the Lie is false prophecy (cf. Jer. 23), the rendering of honor and glory to the creature in place of the Creator. We have seen that the conflict between true and false prophecy, between the witnessing servant prophets and the False Prophet, is central to the concerns of the Book of Revelation. In opposition to her enemies, the Church carries and proclaims the Truth. As the prophets had foretold, God raised up a faithful Remnant during the time of wrath and tribulation on Jerusalem: "But I will leave among you A humble and lowly people, And they will take refuge in the name of the LORD. The Remnant of Israel will do no wrong And tell no lies, Nor will a deceitful tongue Be found in their mouths. . . ." (Zeph. 3:1213)

Commentators have often been vexed over the question of whether this picture is meant to represent the Church as seen on earth, or the Church as seen at rest, in heaven. It should be obvious that both aspects of the Church are in view here — especially since, as we have seen, the Church on earth iS “in heaven” (12:12; 13:6). The famous statement in Hebrews 12:2223 provides compelling evidence: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels in festal assembly, and to the Church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven. . . .”

Milton Terry rightly remarks: “The heaven of our apocalyptist is the visional sphere of the glory and triumph of the Church, and no marked distinction is recognized between the saints on earth and those in heaven. They are conceived as one great company, and death is of no account to them. . . . Thus the entire passage serves to illustrate how saints ‘dwelling in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ are all one in spirit and triumph, no matter what physical locality they may occupy.”G For St. John, Zion “is neither in Jerusalem nor above the clouds; it is the whole assembly of the saints, living and departed.”

Date:

01 Jan 2004

Time:

17:32:50

Comments

Hi Paul, H.L. James here. I see you're still at it (smile). Wonder why you promised to answer my paper about infinite sets (you remember that paper), and then never did it.

Anyway, I have a quick question for you, in your argument, are you using the word "liars" as a noun? This is a simple yes or no question. In other words, "Yes it's a noun" or "No it's not a noun" (followed by what it is).</p> <p>I know you can't answer my paper about actual and potential infinities (although you told many people that you could and would), but I trust you can answer this one. Remember, "Yes it's a noun" or "No, it's not a noun"

Date:

01 Jan 2004

Time:

17:38:54

Comments

Paul... H.L. here again... you state in your argument above: "Now, in a sense we are in NH and E. What we want to ask is if we are in the NH and E of Revelation 21 and 22?" Could you write a short paragraph answering the following question: "In what sense are we in the NH and NE?" You said that we are in it "in some sense" so I'm curious in "what sense" are we already in the NH and NE. (Is it getting hot in here or is it me?)

Date:

02 Jan 2004

Time:

01:02:56

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Something just occurred to me about your comment that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "In a sense." Here's my thought: According to John's Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth don't even appear until AFTER the Great White Throne judgment. In other words, the REASON it is said to have appeared is "for the first heaven and first earth have passed away." Paul, you say that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "in a sense." That means that you believe that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth in some manner. That means that they must be here "in some sense." But they don't appear until AFTER the great white throne judgment. Paul, in order for the New Heavens and New Earth to exist in ANY sense, in order for us to be in the New Heavens and New Earth in ANY sense, the must EXIST! The problem is, the don't exist until AFTER the great white throne judgment according to John's Revelation.

So Paul, are you saying that the great white throne judgment has already happened? If so, then you are a Preterist. If you say we are already in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense," then you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth. If you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth, you're admitting to something that doesn't come into being until AFTER the great white throne judgment. So, Paul, do you believe we're in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense?" I can't wait to hear your answer to this. (is it getting hot in here or is it me?)

Date:

02 Jan 2004

Time:

10:17:48

Comments

H.L. I did write to some of "your people" an answer to your (assumption that Aristotle was correct) set theory, for some reason my e-mails alsways came back blocked from you? So, sorry you didn't receive it? (Though, I would say it is embarrassing to make assumptions in public without the facts, don't you think (smile).

Anyway, (1) I noticed that you had ZERO Scripture in your Aristotilian answer (something unbecomming of you), and since set theory is still debatable if Scripture contradicts your view I would say that Scripture stands over against the CURRENT ideas of set theory. (2) Following from 1, set theory, and what it answers, is highly debateble. There is no consensus that your views are the established ones (you would have needed to prove that. (3) Your key premise was that "IF(!) God/anyone stopped counting the elect it would be a number. That is, if we stopped at 200,345,678,092 then that would be a CERTAIN amount of elected people, that is, God elected them, no more, no less. Now to this I agree, the problem is that your system DOES NOT STOP. So of course, if it stopped you would have a certain fixed number of elect, but since it doesn't, you don't. I had argued that there is a certain number, say the above number, and NO MORE, NO LESS. Your view cannot account for the reformed doctrine of God electing a CERTAIN number, no more, no less. Of course you could if you say, "IF God stops counting then we have one, but the point is God does not stop counting on your system...i.e., they are ALWAYS comming in. (2) I am using liar in the sense the Bible does. I agree that it is ALL those other kinds of liars but there is one class of liars-those who teach contradictory doctrine-that are included in the NO LIARS in the city. This is a simple question.

If there are NO liars, whatsoever in the city, then why are there the type that teach contradictory doctrine? Stop playing games. (3) NH and E, in a sense. It is in the sense that God is putting EVERY enemy under his foot. There is an already not yet aspect to the NH and E. You can cunsult Ridderbos on this. furthermore, I see Isa. 65 as a theonomic post mill (note: SOME aspects of it)NH and E, but not the Rev.21,22 NH and E. Anyway, I see that no one wants toi touch the liars argument.-Paul

Date:

02 Jan 2004

Time:

14:45:28

Comments

Paul... hehehe... H.L. James here again. Could you please answer my questions? Are you using the word "liars" as noun? As you can see... I'm positioning myself to not only "deal" with your "liars" issue, but I'm here to give it a knockout punch (which I'm sure you suspect). So... Paul... please... how are you using the word liars? Are you using it as a noun? Don't answer with something like "I'm using it in the same way the Bible uses it." That's debatable. In fact, your answer will help us determine exactly if you're using liars the way the Bible uses it. So, please... just say noun if it's noun... or whatever. Try to avoid unhelpful comments.

Date:

02 Jan 2004

Time:

14:50:25

Comments

Paul... now on to your set theory issue. I have inquired of everyone I know who is in contact with you and they ALL say that you NEVER answered the set theory question. Anyway, there is a thing called "convergence" that you probably don't know about. The idea is that you can have an infinite number "converging" on a single number. An example would be the paradox of a unit of measure. To get from point a to point b you need to traverse an infinite number of "midpoints" between each "midpoint" between each "midpoint." You eventually "reach" or "converge upon" your destination. From zero inches to one inch, there is an infinite number of "midpoints" which eventually "converge" at one inch. Think about this for a bit while you're answering my questions about word "liars" and whether or not it's a noun.

Date:

02 Jan 2004

Time:

14:51:29

Comments

Paul, also... since you didn't go anywhere NEAR my question about your statement that the New Heavens and New Earth are already here, I'll repost it for you: Paul, H.L. James here again. Something just occurred to me about your comment that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "In a sense." Here's my thought: According to John's Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth don't even appear until AFTER the Great White Throne judgment. In other words, the REASON it is said to have appeared is "for the first heaven and first earth have passed away." Paul, you say that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth "in a sense." That means that you believe that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth in some manner. That means that they must be here "in some sense." But they don't appear until AFTER the great white throne judgment.

 Paul, in order for the New Heavens and New Earth to exist in ANY sense, in order for us to be in the New Heavens and New Earth in ANY sense, the must EXIST! The problem is, the don't exist until AFTER the great white throne judgment according to John's Revelation. So Paul, are you saying that the great white throne judgment has already happened? If so, then you are a Preterist. If you say we are already in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense," then you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth. If you admit to the existance of the New Heavens and New Earth, you're admitting to something that doesn't come into being until AFTER the great white throne judgment. So, Paul, do you believe we're in the New Heavens and New Earth "in some sense?" I can't wait to hear your answer to this. (is it getting hot in here or is it me?)

Date:

03 Jan 2004

Time:

01:53:49

Comments

PAUL - NOBODY TOUCHED YOUR "NO LIARS" ARGUMENT? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING - THE VERSE BELOW - ALL PARTIAL PRETERISTS SAY IS A PAST EVENT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WERE ALIVE AT THE TIME PRIOR TO THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH. FOR THE FULL VERSION PLEASE SCROLL UP. Revelation 14 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless.

Date:

03 Jan 2004

Time:

10:16:44

Comments

H.L., (1) well I guess we could get into memory reliability, but I'm sure you don't want to waste time, just say that you assumed...it's o.k...it doesn't matter much. Anyway, for your set theory: your answer is all fine and good, except your view has NO CONVERGING POINT, e.g., the inch would be the "END" of what there were an infinite series of points in, the problem is that, your system does not have an "inch/end point!" There can never be A SET NUMBER. Why? Because you always add 1 to it. I grant that if you stop then you have no problem but the point is that you do not stop. So, as I said, which YOU did not answer. How do you have a number where, NO MORE/NO LESS if you are ALWAYS adding ONE to it. This should be pretty simple. Stop trying to intellectualy bully people.

(2) H.L. want control, but I will not give it to him. I am using liars/lie as a person who teaches false doctrine. Now, in the city there are NONE of the class of liars. Why is ONE of the classes there? H.L. you will not treat me like you do "your people." If you have the "knockout punch"...then give it! Let's go. Stop the games. I'm waiting.

(3) H.L. since you didn't understand my answer to the NH and E I refer you to Ridderbos (already/not yet, pre/post consumation) and Bahnsen, "Theonomy In Christian Ethics." (btw, your set theory paper had about 8 misssspellllled words in it. That was going to be a very funny and embarrassing response. Hint, remember the other letter you sent me? =) I guess pride does go before the fall!

(4) For the one who said they answered my liars argument: (1) H.L. must not think so otherwise he would refer me to the above post and not have a "knockout punch" waiting. (2) I find it interesting that you guys now use commetaries! Everytime I use a commentator who contradicts your view you say that, "The Bible is my creed." So, that's fine, you want your cake and to eat it to. (3) The Bible says that those who teach doctrines which are contradictory to the ONE revealed doctrine are liars. Why, then, are there people in the city who teach/hold to contradictory doctine if there are NO liars there? Would God teach contradictory doctrine? No! Why? Because "It is impossible for him to lie." -Paul

(5) Chilton says "As St. Paul declared regarding the heathen, the basic Lie is idolatry:" If you guys notice, Rev 21:8 makes a distinction between idolators and liars. John mentions types that will not be there, murders, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIARS. Thanks for your time and interesting interchange, but as we can see NONE of the above posts has even touched the argument.

(6) H.L. says that it is debatable that teaching false doctrine is a lie. Let's examine this:objection 2: "Teaching false doctrine is not lying." Oh really? Prov.30:6 states: quote:

6Do not add to his words, lets he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Now, since the Bible only teaches ONE truth anything that we teach that is not the one revealed truth is adding to what the Bible says. For example, if I am wrong about paedobaptism then when I teach or explain it I am adding to what the Bible teaches about baptism, thus I lie. Likewise, based on the law of non-contradiction, either HP or orthodox Christianity is lying. I John 2:4 teaches us that: quote:

The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

 You see, anti-nomian teaching is called lying. Teaching a warped view of, "we are under grace not law" is to teach a lie! Furthermore, look at all the passages which call false prophets liars. These people taught false doctrines and were condemned as liars by Jehovah. Some verses are: Ez. 22:28, Jer 28:15, Jer 27:16. Therefore, we can see that the Bible plainly and authoritatively states that teaching/promoting false doctrine is lying. We saw in Rev. 21 that there will be no liars there, and that no one who maketh a lie will be there.

Date:

03 Jan 2004

Time:

22:27:29

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again (smile). So is it a noun or what? Do you use the word "liars" as a noun? Why is it so hard for you to answer one simple question? Also, in the Revelation, what did Jesus mean when He says "The time is near" and "Behold, I am coming quickly?" Here's the passage:

And he said to me, "Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is AT HAND. 11He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous[5] still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." 12 "And behold, I AM COMING QUICKLY, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

 Paul, how do you explain the passage just quoted? Is it still future? Simple yes or now will do.

Date:

04 Jan 2004

Time:

12:24:42

Comments

Among the liars that will have their place in the lake of fire are there any in the New Covenant which Jeremiah said 'they shall ALL know me from the least to the greatest'? If you say no then your argument against the NH and NE being the NC has just been rendered null and void. 

Date:

04 Jan 2004

Time:

13:31:26

Comments

To the writer of Dec. 26, 2003, 11:58:57: both Mr. X. (by showing the existence of those who have no lie in their mouths to have already come) and Mr. Krall (by pointing out what kind of liar is meant) have addressed the issue. The point is, as even Mr. Manata points out, there are different kinds of liars, and for him to argue that the existence of liars "proves" that the NH and NE have not arrived based on one definition of "liar" when the proper definition that should be used (demonstrated in that there were already people in whose mouth there was no lie) has been given.

In addition, it is obvious that both the "literal" understandings of the passages compared (in my original post) cannot be true. Will there be dying in the NH and NE or will there be "no death"? Or would it be best to understand that there is more than one can of dying, and that the deaths in view are not the same? Likewise, we should understand that there is more than one kind of lying, and that the lying in view (as pointed out by Mr. Krall, Mr. X., and others) is specific.

Also, while I have no idea how it is possible, there are partial preterists who believe that the NH and HE are the NC: http://mikeblume.com/matrevjer.htm http://mikeblume.com/whatcity.htm http://mikeblume.com/newcity.htm http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/dit/dit09.97.htm The New Jerusalem and the NH and NE representing the NC is not an inherently "hyper"-preterist doctrine. <br> Again, I will end my post by pointing out that it could have been said that "The idea of [insert just about any "Protestant" doctrine] has simply been misunderstood by the Church for the last fifteen hundred years" in the early days of the Reformation. Were the Catholic scholars, with all their training and studying, right just because of their training and studying?

Kenneth

Date:

04 Jan 2004

Time:

16:41:18

Comments

so the Bible is wrong that teaching false doctrine is a lie?

Date:

05 Jan 2004

Time:

12:30:11

Comments

The Bible is just as wrong in saying that false doctrine is a lie as it is in saying that there is no death in the NH and NE/New Jerusalem (Rev. 21) and that people will die there (Isaiah 65). The Bible isn't wrong at all, it's when people try to force meanings on passages that were not necessarily intended that "problems" arise. Obviously the deaths of which these passages speak are different, or there is a contradiction. Likewise, as has been demonstrated, false doctrine and debates need not be the "lies" in view in Revelation 21, 22.

It's not whether false doctrine is a lie, but whether false doctrine is the lie in view that is the question. That there is false doctrine does not prove that the NH and NE have not come because there are no liars there any more than the fact that people die physically means that Jesus' words in John 8:51 (that those who keep His word will not taste death) are a lie. Just as the "death" of which Christ speaks is specific, the "liars" in Rev. 21 are a specific group. Take care and God bless. Take care and God bless. KP

Date:

05 Jan 2004

Time:

13:41:55

Comments

how would you prove your assertion, though?

...and, are you saying that when Rev 21:8,27 says, "ALL liars" and "ANYONE who maketh a lie" that does not mean ALL in the class of liars, but rather some? And, of course, how would this be proved?

...I have one more question. Do you think, when you get to heaven (whatever your concept of that is) that you and the other saints will debate/argue about, say, infant baptism, calvinism/arminianism/,eschatology, forms of Church government, etc.,. If not, why? If so, why?

Date:

05 Jan 2004

Time:

14:58:51

Comments

No, I don't think that we'll be debating these issues in the post-physical death "eternal state" of heaven.

I think of it this way: John 6:35, 53 speak of the believer never having hunger or thirst, but these are not with reference to ALL kinds of hunger and thirst (physical hunger and thirst), but to a specific kind. Now, do I believe that people will need physical food in heaven because we still have it here even though Jesus says that those who believe in Him will never hunger or thirst and this clearly does not refer to physical hunger? No. The same principle is in play in the case of "liars." While a specific kind of "liar" is in view in the Rev. 21, 22, this does not mean that "liars" of other sorts will continue. Rather, I see that the other kind of liar is eliminated later, at physical death, as is the case with the hunger and thirst not eliminated by faith in Christ.

The hunger of John 6:35 does not mean that since physical hunger is not eliminated while one is physically alive that it will never be eliminated; rather, upon physical death it is eliminated. In the same way, that the "liars" of Revelation 21, 22 are not doctrinal dissenters and therefore false doctrine and debating will not cease to exist during physical existence in the New Jerusalem (since they are not the "lies" of the "liars" in view) does not mean that there will be no resolution; upon one's physical death, this issue is also resolved. Since the concept is valid with reference to hunger and thirst (one kind is eliminated in Christ, while another is eliminated at death), I see no reason why this same principle would not apply in the case of "liars" (one kind is non-existent in the New Jerusalem, one kind is non-existent in the "eternal state" of heaven). KP

Date:

05 Jan 2004

Time:

16:11:49

Comments

what Scripture do you have to support your view that we will no be arguing/debating in your view of heaven? Also, why does "ALL" liars not mean "ALL" like it says, but rather "SOME" liars like you are implying?

Date:

05 Jan 2004

Time:

19:54:07

Comments

So when believers physically die and "see death," do they "prove" that Jesus' words in John 8:51 are a lie? When Christians eat food, do they prove Jesus' words in John 6:35 to be a lie? How then does your argument about liars "prove" that we are not in the NH and NE/NJ? Neither Mr. X.'s argument about the past fulillment of the day when no lie would be found in the mouths of the followers of Christ nor Mr. Krall's points about the liars has been shown to not be true. Keeping in mind that it's been pointed out so many times that there exists more than one kind of liar just like there exists more than one kind of death and more kind of hunger, there is no basis for forcing "all liars" to have any meaning other than that already put forth by Mr. X., Mr. Krall, and others.

In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul says, "there is no God but one." Then he turns around and writes in the next verse, "there are many gods and many lords." According to your logic about liars, Paul contradicted himself since he said both that there is no God but one and that there are many gods. Obviously the meanings of "God"/"god" in his statements were different. The Bible, in this very context, is clear as to the identity of these gods: they are so called-gods, for there is no such thing as an idol in reality. So, there are many gods (in one sense, the sense that there are many fabrications toward which people offer worship), but no God but one (in another sense, the sense of true deity). Likewise, there is no liar (in one sense, the sense of one who does not confess Jesus) in the NH and NE/NJ, while in other senses (debate of doctrine) there may be. Mr. X., Mr. Krall, and others have clearly stressed the point about the identity of the liars, and I in addition to them have shown that words can have different meanings in different contexts, and that it can be improper to force the meaning of a word in one context onto another context with various other examples.

These include: (1) Jesus promised that those who keep His word will never see death, while believers die every day. (2) Jesus promised to eliminate hunger and thirst in those who come to Him and believe in Him, yet believers still must consume physical food for nourishment. (3) In this post, that there are both many gods and no God but one. If your logic about "no liars" is true, is Jesus a false prophet based on His words in John 6:35 and 8:51? If your point about "no liars" is true, did Paul contradict himself in 1 Corinthians 8:4, 5, where he both said that there is no God but one and that there are many gods? If not, on what basis do you say that "no liars" MUST mean "liar" in every sense of the word (since you do not impose the same standard on Jesus and Paul)?

 Obviously Jesus' words in John 6:35 about "never" hungering do not speak of all kinds of hunger, and his words in John 8:51 do not speak of ALL kinds of death (since He prophesied the death of Peter - John 21:15-19). Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 8:4 can't be talking about every sense of the word "god" or else he would be contradicting himself in the next verse. So the fact that he said that there is no God but one does not preclude other kinds of "gods" (false idols that do not live) from existing. Likewise, that there is "no liar" in the NH and NE/NJ does not by definition mean that no one fitting any significance of the word "liar" can be found there, but only that kind of liar in view, which, as previously stated, has been pointed out by Mr. Krall, Mr. X., and others. What is the basis for you assertion that "no liars" must mean every sense of liar when Jesus' and Paul's similar language with reference to other things does not carry the same force? KP

Date:

06 Jan 2004

Time:

09:18:04

Comments

...actually, just had a couple questions. So, anyway, you have no proof that ALL does not mean ALL, other than, "other times hunger does not mean physical food?" Weel, this is an interesting argument...I must say. But, let's take it to its logical conclusion: ALL does not mean ALL, so then, ALL murderers does not mean ALL, ALL idolators does not mean ALL. Wow, who's left out of the city? Some idolators are in, some are not! This is silly. Furthermore, allow me to use HP eisogesis. ALL does not mean ALL in Rev 21:8...o.k., then ALL the overcommers in Rev 21:7 does not mean ALL! Therefore, there are SOME of the class of overcommers who are not there! Great position. Also, KP, do you have the verses to prove your assertion that we will not debate/argue doctrine in heaven (your concept of, of course)?-Paul

Date:

06 Jan 2004

Time:

15:51:14

Comments

H.L. James here again. Has everyone noticed how Paul Manata refuses to come straight out and say if the word "liars" he's referring to is a noun? I think he's afraid of what I may have for him. Paul, you afraid of a bit of truth? Come on... when you use the word "liars" in your argument, you're using it as a noun, aren't ya? Just say yes. Either way, as soon as you answer yes or no, I've got ya. (smile) H.L. James

Date:

06 Jan 2004

Time:

16:15:48

Comments

re: Mike X., per KP. I just let his own letters refute him. I am glad that he does the posts with so much anger (usually happens when arguments get to ya). Also, you guys had some lying HPs come on a message board that requires adherence to the WCF and LBC. Just keep doing things like that and your position will take care of itself. Furthermore, H.L., sometimes I use it as a verb, sometimes a noun, sometimes an adj. Depends. -pAUL

Date:

06 Jan 2004

Time:

17:40:11

Comments

Paul... thank you for letting us know how you use the word "liars." You said, and I quote: "sometimes I use it as a verb, sometimes a noun, sometimes an adj. Depends." Excellent, exactly what I needed you to say. You've tried to leave yourself some wiggle-room. That's exactly what I expected you to do. Oh... do you prefer hemp, nylon or dacron? Stay tuned... H.L. James

Paul, one more thing before I send the Anola Gay; in your Transcendental Argument, do you ever deal with the possibility that the New Heavens and New Earth are indeed here, but liars, no matter how verbal they are about their Christianity, are simply outside the city and therefore not part of the New Covenant? In other words, your "proof" that we are not in the New Heavens and New Earth rests upon the word "liars," and you (thank God) have given that word a VERY narrow meaning. So, in keeping with the narrow meaning you've given the word "liars" (which I'll deal with shortly), is it, in your view, possible, just based on the fact that your only "proof" so far, is the existance of what you call "liars" and what you claim that word means, is it possible, in your view that when you see "liars," you suppose you see Christian liars, but in reality, those people you see as the "liars" are simply imposters and are indeed outside the City (new covenant)?

If you don't see that as a possibility, could you just give us a short paragraph as to why it cannot be that way. In other words, given your use of the word "liars," isn't it just as possible that the New Heavens and New Earth could indeed be a reality and those individuals you say are the "liars" in the Church are "at church" perhaps, but are really simply outside the city? Remember, your agrument hinges on the word "liars" and what you say that word means. One of the passages you use as your "proof texts" from Revelation 22:15 states that "dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie" are outside the city. You say that this proves that the New Heavens and New Earth are not here because there are people "in the Church" who love and practice a lie." Right? Your argument uses the above passage of Scripture. Right?

Your argument states that since there are Christians who "love and practice" a lie, that we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth. Doesn't it? Okay. Doesn't your argument assume that there could be such a thing as a true Christian who "loves and practices a lie?" Wouldn't Calvin and all the other reformers vehemently disagree with that notion? Here's something I want you to think about: the verse I quoted above mentions several nasty types of people. Right? Here's the list: dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, murderers, idolaters, and of course, whoever "loves and practices a lie." You would agree that that's the list, right? Okay. you say, that because you see "Christians" lying, we must not be in the New Heavens and New Earth, right? Now I want you to think about the list I've quoted from John's Revelation again. DOGS, SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS. Let's just concentrate on these for a moment.

 Just keep in mind that "whoever loves and practices a lie" is in this group of extremely nasty things. You say something like, "I, Paul Manata, because I see Liars in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Right? Good. The first thing we need to do is update your statement to more closely fit the Scriptures. Here we go: "I, Paul Manata, because I see people who LOVE AND PRACTICE A LIE in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Isn't that better? Now, what I want you to do is to replace the word "liars" (remember, it's just one of a list of nasties) with any of the other things on the list, okay? Let's try it. "I, Paul Manata, because I see Sorcerers in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now, ask yourself, is anyone who is a sorcerer really IN the Church in the first place? They may be "at church," but are they really IN the Church (Christ's Body)? Oh, oh... let's do it again... this is fun, isn't it? Okay, let's do another substitution: "I, Paul Manata, because I see SEXUALLY IMMORAL people in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth."

Now, would you say that people who are sexually immoral are really "in the Church" in the first place? You know, like a Christian playboy or a Christian Penthouse Pet. Sounds a bit weird, doesn't it? Sure it does. Now, let's do another substitution: "I, Paul Manata, because I see MURDERERS in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now, ask yourself, "are people who committ MURDER really IN the Church in the first place?" Imagine a Christian Hitler, or a Christian Al Capone. These things ARE all in the same list, right? Let's continue: "I, Paul Manata, because I see PEOPLE SACRIFICING THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN THE FIRES OF MOLECH in the Church, we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Now ask yourself, "are people who SACRIFICE THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS IN THE FIRES OF MOLECH really IN the Church (Body of Christ) in the first place?" Aren't these the kinds of things you would think are indicators that someone IS NOT in the Body of Christ in the first place? So, I ask again, since WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE is on the list I've just used for our illustration, don't you think we can consider "whatever it means" to be as ugly and "unChristian" as all the other things on the list?

Isn't it indeed possible that the New Heavens and New Earth are INDEED here, and that the New Jerusalem (the Bride of Christ, the New Covenant) is INDEED HERE, and that the DOGS, SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE, are INDEED ALL OUTSIDE THE CITY (NOT part of the Bride of Christ, NOT part of the NEW COVENANT)? Isn't that possible, Paul? If not... tell us all how , SORCERERS, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MURDERERS, IDOLATERS, and WHOEVER LOVES AND PRACTICES A LIE are "in the Church" in the first place. (by the way, I'm just getting started with you) . H.L. James

Date:

07 Jan 2004

Time:

00:48:28

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. In keeping with my question to you in my last post (which I hope you take the time to answer thoughtfully), here is a passage from the letter to the Ephesians where the Apostle Paul says just what I've said in my last post to you. The Apostle Paul writes: -=[ For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them.]=- I think you get my point. H.L.

Date:

07 Jan 2004

Time:

09:11:35

Comments

H.L., I'm glad your "just getting started with me." Anyway, I have NOT given liar a narrow meaning. I have said it means ALL those things (e.g., deniars of Christ, liars who don't obey his commandments, cf. IJn), but it ALSOP includes THOSE who "add to the word of the Lord (Prov. 31:6), if the Bible doesn't teach HP then you have ADDED, or if it does; I have. H.L. do you or do you not believe that there can be liars in the city? If you say "no" then what about the class that teaches false doctrine? I know you know this destroys your position and this is why you guys are going through gymnastics. Now, you may say that it doesn't mean that "ALL" of the members of the class of liars are excluded. That is, to save your position, you have to remove the BIBLICALLY DEFINED group known as "adders to the word" or teachers of false doctrine! Now, that's fine. I need to see the PROOF that that class is not there. That is, I need to see the proof that "ALL" in Rev 21:8,27 does not mean "ALL." (BTW, the passage you quoted says "lie" which is a verb).

So, you can say that ALL does not mean ALL. O.K., that's fine. But Columbo just has another question. Does that also apply to the murderers, idolaters, sexually immoral, etc as well? If so, just who don't you guys let into the city! Therefore, if you say that ALL liars do not mean ALL then you also (trying to not be arbitrary) would say that ALL the others does not mean all as well...right? Good. That's consistant. Now, by implication, what can we conclude? That SOME liars, idolaters, murderers, sexually immoral, etc., ARE IN THE CITY! But wait(!) doesn't it say that ALL those are outside. Furthermore, how do you non-arbitrarily say that ALL overcommers in Rev 21:7 means ALL? So let me see if I got it? ALL in 21:8 doesn't mean ALL, o.k. neither does it in 21:7, therefore, SOME overcommers are NOT in the city! Oh, but you don't like that do you? Hey, I learned this game from you so don't complain now. Flat-out, this is pretty simple. You need to show that ALL does not mean ALL here, while still keeping ALL of those outside the city. You need to account for the arbitrariness between Rev 21:7 and 8, i.e., one verse referrs to ALL, the other doesn't. -btw, I hope you don't end up with radiation poisoning from piloting the "Anola gay." (Oh yea, America should be referred to orthodox Christianity and Hiroshima to HP.) Anyway, waiting for this devastating argument.....Paul

H.L.'s horns of a dilema. (1) If ALL really means ALL then it includes the class of liars who teach false doctrine. Since one of us is contradicting the other one is teaching false doctrine. Thus we couldn't be in the city. H.L. "escapes" by 2. (2) All does not mean ALL. O.k. then SOME have to allowed in...right?...they have to, right?...logically. But how can SOME enter in to the city when it says "NOTHING unclean will ever enter it."? Now, you can say that, "oh they don't enter into it unclean, they wash their robes." Well (1) this is to beg the question, since that is what we are debateing. (2) If you are correct why do they wash their robes but leave some elements dity? That is, nice wash job! It really is just an out. What you are saying is just a formality, i.e., they wash their robes but still lie, murder, and such. Wow! what a washing. Anyway, I hope you think about this and the above post...I think you see the point.

therefore, by debating you lost, since debating presupposes that liars can be in the city, and we know that NONE can be. So, respond and prove my argument. -Paul

Date:

07 Jan 2004

Time:

11:38:26

Comments

Paul, H.L. James here again. Which one of us are you suggesting is not in the city? Since I indeed say that NONE of those mentioned in the list of Rev 22 are "in the city," or even CAN be, and since you seem to agree with me that this MUST be the case, and since you seem to want to say that "people who debate doctrine" are liars, then which one of us, in your opinion, is outside the city? Remember, I say we're in the New Heavens and New Earth, which means that I believe that ALL dogs, sorcerers, sexually immoral, idolaters, and whosoever loves and practices a lie are "outside" the city and their inheritance is the lake of fire. You see Paul, Preterists don't have a problem saying that ALL of the "whosoever loves and practices a lie" are outside the city. As I already showed you earlier, the Apostle Paul didn't have a problem with saying that either when he said that none of these would "inherit the kingdom of Christ and God."

In terms of "debating," you seem to think that both sides of the debate are "dirty," when in reality it is entirely possible that one side is right (clean), while one side is wrong (dirty). So imagine this, two people claim to be Christian. One loves the truth of Scripture as it appears in Scripture, the other wants to twist Scripture to mean that Jesus and the Apostles were "mistaken" about the clear time statements they made. Which one would you say deserves to inherit the lake of fire and to be "outside the city?" The one who twists God's word, right? I would agree (which is why I won't give up on you). You see, Paul, I, like many reformed theologians, believe that the true "elect" exhibit certain qualities. One of those core qualities is their love for "Scripture Alone." What you have done with your Transcendental Argument is you have created a Transcendental Argument against your own ability to create a Transcendental Argument. So, which one of us, in your opinion, would be excluded from entrance into the city? Jesus said he was "coming quickly" in several places in the Revelation. The Preterist leaves those words alone and says Jesus did come quickly and that the time was "at hand" at the time. You, on the other hand, say that those things didn't happen as Jesus predicted they would. You have "taken away" from the words of the prophecy of that book. What does the book specifically say about people who do that? No entrance into the city. Observe:

Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 Okay, so Jesus says that if a person "takes away" from the words of this book of this prophecy, God would take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in the book. So here's a test to see where you stand: In the Revelation, Jesus said that the time of his coming, where he would "reward every man according to what he had done" was "at hand." Was it? The book says it was. If you say, "it wasn't," then you have taken away from the words of the book, because the book says "it was at hand." If you take away from the words of the book, you are "outside the city." I didn't say that, the book itself says that. Here's another test: Jesus said:

Revelation 22:6 "Then he said to me,'These words are faithful and true.' And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place."

 So, did the things that Jesus showed his servants "shortly" take place? If you say they didn't, then you have taken away from the words of the book and your reward for doing that is that you are "outside the city." (and the book of life.) If you change the meaning of the words "shortly, quickly, at hand, near," then you have still "taken away from the words of this book and your reward is to remain "outside the city" and have no part in the Book of Life. Paul, just based on the Revelation as it is, even if you say that the New Heavens and New Earth have not come yet, just that very argument puts you at odds with the Word of God and specifically the Revelation, which says that it was "at hand" over 1900 years ago, which said that Jesus would "come quickly." Your Transcendental Argument against HyperPreterism "takes away" from the words of the book of this prophecy by saying that none of the things that were "at hand" really were "at hand" and therefore, makes you eligible for exclusion from the city, and inclusion in the lake of fire, because your argument says that the things that "must shortly take place" didn't shortly take place. Get what I'm saying here, Paul. Do the test on yourself. Ask yourself, "Did Jesus come quickly as he promised?" If you say yes, you're a Preterist. If you say no, you've "taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy" and you are outside the city and your name is excluded from the Book of Life. Remember, I didn't say that, it's in the book itself.

Here's another test: People like to play around with the idea that "Gods timing is not the same as man's timing." But what about "John's timing?" John was a man, right? John used words like "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour." This is the same John who went on to report to the seven churches in Revelation 1:1-3 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near." Okay, John, (not God using some twisted form of the words), John said, over 1900 years ago, that Jesus "signi