Why it is Perfectly OK to Say Naughty Things about Heretical Preterists!

By Dan Trotter

"This is typical of the slick rhetorical tricks heretical preterists like to use. The reader will notice that the logic I've given above pierces their buncombe. That the heretical preterists (given their premises) are right about the timing of the resurrection, and that the ancient Hymenaeans were wrong about the timing of the resurrection, is absolutely irrelevant to Paul's anger and condemnation of Hymenaeus and company. Paul could not have possibly gotten that upset over a few decades worth of difference in timing between himself and Hymenaeus."

Why it is Perfectly OK to say Naughty Things About Heretical Preterists - D.T. "My view is that the antiresurrectionist neo-hymenaean opinion is precisely "the constant application of stupidity" to the eschatological problem. My view is that hymenaean heretics don't deserve a seat at the eschatological debating table. My view is that giving these doctrinal deviants a place of respectability will allow "enemy forces to gather to deceive the unwary who cannot defend themselves." | A (Somewhat) Irenic Response to Certain Naughty Heretical Preterists - D.T.

I was recently taken aback when I discovered that an heretical preterist that I knew decided not to attend the annual Southern House Church Conference that I help sponsor, because I had told him via email that he was "gangrenous". I thought to myself, how could I, the meek, mild, gentle, wimpy, Clark-Kentish Dan Trotter have ever said something that bad about anyone? Four days later I had a flash: I was applying to my full preterist correspondent one of the same terms that Paul had applied to the heretical preterists of his day. Let me quote the words of the inspired apostle: "and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place..." (2 Tim 2:17,18a) When I realized I had apostolic precedent, I immediately felt better about my rhetorical intemperance. In fact, what I said about heretical preterists was positively mild in comparison with what Paul said about the ancient hyperpreterists: he called them blasphemers (I Tim 1:20), he said they had rejected their faith (I Tim 1:19), they had rejected a good conscience (I Tim 1:19), they had shipwrecked their faith (I Tim 1:19), he handed them over to Satan (I Tim 1:20), he called them vain and profane babblers (II Tim 2:16), he said they were ungodly (II Tim 2:16), he said they had gone astray from the truth (II Tim 2:18), and he said that they were upsetting the faith of Christians (II Time 2:18).

Now, I dare say if I would apply the aforementioned epithets to a modern day Hymenean, I would hear some variation of the following: "Brother, you're not showing love. This is just a minor dispute about the timing of certain eschatological events." I would respond to this by not only appealing to Paul, but also to Tina Turner: "What's love got to do with this?" "Love" is the first word out of the mouth of someone about to lose a theological argument. If someone dumps a load of horse-patookey into my living room, I'm not going to tell him how much I love him. I am going to request of him in no uncertain terms to shovel the stuff out.

Hyperpreterists, of course, don't like the strictures Paul used against Hymenaeus and Philetus to be used against them, and have gone to great lengths to disassociate themselves from the gangrenous teachings of those two heretics. Heretical preterists have a good deal of trouble doing this, because Hymenaeus and Philetus believed back then exactly what the hyperpreterists believe now: the resurrection of the dead has already occurred. So how do the heretical preterists try to make their case? I am going to lay out their case, and then show you beyond cavil that their case is patently absurd. Once I have done that, I will feel perfectly free in good conscience to end this article by adding some other choice labels to our present day heretical preterists, namely: quasi-gnostic, quasi-manichean, and quasi-liberal.

"Love" is the first word out of the mouth of someone about to lose a theological argument.

o, how do the hyperpreterists disassociate themselves from Hymenaeus and Philetus? They do it by trying to argue that Paul was disagreeing with those two, not over the NATURE of the resurrection, but rather, over its TIMING. As we shall see, this is impossible: Paul was upset with Hymenaeus because of Hymenaeus' view of the NATURE of the resurrection. Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the body (Rom 8:23; Phil 3:21; I Cor 15:20,23,44,52; I Thess 4:16) and Hymenaeus and Philetus did not believe in a physical resurrection of the body, and so Paul anathematized them.

This is how the heretical preterists argue that the disagreement between Paul and Hymenaeus was over the timing of the resurrection, not its nature. First, they point out (correctly) that Hymenaeus was not arguing that a physical resurrection had already occurred. If the argument were that, all Paul would have to do to refute it would be to point out that all the graves around them had bodies in them, therefore no physical resurrection had occurred. Nobody would be dumb enough to assert such an easily-refuted proposition, and no one would be dumb enough to believe it. Therefore, if Hymenaeus didn't believe that a physical resurrection had already occurred, he must have believed in something else, probably that a spiritual resurrection of some sort had occurred in the heavenlies, which is what the heretical preterists of today believe, and which is what hyperpreterists assert that Paul believed. So, the hyperpreterists argue, if Hymenaeus believed in a spiritual resurrection, and Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection, Paul couldn't be upset with Hymenaeus over that, and therefore, he had to be upset only over the timing of the resurrection.

There are two ways to proceed here to prove the hyperpreterists wrong. One would be to point out the numerous Scriptures which easily prove that Paul, in fact, did believe in a physical resurrection, and therefore his disagreement with Hymenaeus was over the nature, not the timing, of the resurrection. This is easy enough to do, and I have done so on a sound recording you can listen to by clicking here: [get link] The second way to show that the dispute with Hymenaeus was over the nature of the resurrection, and not its timing, is to grant the hyperpreterists' premise arguendo, namely that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection just like Hymenaeus believed, and that the dispute was thus over the timing of the resurrection, not its nature, and then proceed from there to show that this hyperpreterist argument is absurd on its own premises. We'll do that next.

If someone dumps a load of horse-patookey into my living room, I'm not going to tell him how much I love him. I am going to request of him in no uncertain terms to shovel the stuff out.

n hyperpreterist assumptions, the most disagreement that Paul and Hymenaeus could have over timing is approximately forty years. Paul's view of timing would be governed by Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse, in which Jesus said that "this generation" would not pass away until "all these things" previously referred to had taken place (Mt 24:34), one of which was Jesus' "coming" (Mt 24:27,30). Now, Jesus' "coming" is intimately associated with the resurrection. This can be seen in such verses as I Cor 15:23 "But each [are resurrected] in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His COMING." Also, I Thess 4:15 (cf. v.17): "...we who are alive and remain until the COMING of the Lord will not precede [in resurrection] those who have fallen asleep." Now, if Jesus' coming was within one generation of when Jesus spoke, and if the resurrection of the dead occurred at Jesus' coming, therefore the resurrection was also within one generation of when Jesus spoke (on hyperpreterist assumptions). If Jesus spoke around A.D. 30, and a generation is roughly forty years, then the resurrection of the dead (again, on hyperpreterist assumptions) would be around AD 70. This is when Paul would be expecting the coming of Jesus, and the associated resurrection of the just and the unjust (again, granting the hyperpreterists their premises).

If Paul was expecting the resurrection around AD 70, how did Hymenaeus time the resurrection? At the time Paul wrote II Timothy (mid sixties), Hymenaeus believed that the resurrection had "already" come. The earliest that the resurrection could logically be thought by Hymenaeus to have occurred would be the instant after Jesus had returned to heaven. This is so because, Jesus could not have "come" from heaven and caused the resurrection, unless he had first gone to heaven. So the earliest date that Hymenaeus could have possibly taught that the resurrection had occurred is the date that Jesus ascended, which is approximately A.D. 30, which is the date the majority of scholars assign to Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. And now we compare Paul's view of the timing of the resurrection, with Hymenaeus's view of the timing of the resurrection, so we can get a feel for the great, burning controversy that caused Paul to get himself all bent out of shape, and which caused him to label Hymenaeus and Philetus blasphemous, gangrenous, faith-shipwrecked, and consigned to Satan. Paul's view: A.D. 70. Hymenaeus's view (at the max): A.D. 30. The difference? A whopping forty years. FORTY YEARS!!!! And for that, Paul is going to send these guys to hell? For forty years? PUH-LEEZE!! If anyone reading this believes that, please email me, so I can show you some great oceanfront property in Arizona I want to sell you.

So, if the dispute between Paul and Hymenaeus can't be over the TIMING of the resurrection as the heretical preterists so foolishly allege, then that leaves only one option for the subject of the dispute, namely, the NATURE of the resurrection. Paul believed in the physical resurrection, just as scadzillions of Christians through the millennia have believed. Hymenaeus didn't believe in a physical resurrection, and that's why Paul was so upset with him and his friends.

Their case is patently absurd.

he heretical preterists often counter the assertion that they are Hymeneans by pointing out that, although they are claiming the resurrection has already come, as did the Hymeneans, they are different then the Hymeneans, in this one respect: the hyperpreterists are making their claim that the resurrection already happened POST- A.D. 70, whereas Hymenaeus and friends were making their identical claim PRE- A.D. 70. The hyperpreterists then say: see, Hymenaeus was wrong, because, indeed, when Hymenaeus made the claim, in fact, the resurrection hadn't occurred yet (because they made the claim pre- A.D. 70), but when we full preterists make the claim today, we are perfectly correct in saying the resurrection has already occurred, because it indeed has already occurred, in A.D. 70. This is typical of the slick rhetorical tricks heretical preterists like to use. The reader will notice that the logic I've given above pierces their buncombe. That the heretical preterists (given their premises) are right about the timing of the resurrection, and that the ancient Hymenaeans were wrong about the timing of the resurrection, is absolutely irrelevant to Paul's anger and condemnation of Hymenaeus and company. Paul could not have possibly gotten that upset over a few decades worth of difference in timing between himself and Hymenaeus. What he was upset about was that in saying that the resurrection had already come, Hymenaeus was also saying that there wasn't going to be another one, which sent Paul ballistic, which sends me ballistic, and which ought to get you pretty riled up, too.

I should point out here that there is another possible way to analyze the controversy between Paul and Hymenaeus, which, however, still leaves the heretical preterists in trouble. I take this argument from Jonathan Seriah's The End of All Things, p. 158. This argument assumes that the controversy between Paul and Hymenaeus was not over timing (impossible, as we've seen above), but it also assumes that Paul and Hymenaeus weren't disagreeing over the nature of the resurrection either. Says Seraiah, Hymenaeus was referring to the events recorded in Mt 27:52-53 when he says the resurrection already occurred. Those verses say that, about the time of Jesus' resurrection, "the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many." Therefore, on Seraiah's view, Hymenaeus agreed with Paul that the resurrection of the saints was a physical one, but he disagreed with Paul concerning the extent of the resurrection. Hymenaeus believed that those few that were raised at Jesus' crucifixion were all that were ever going to be resurrected. The rest of Christendom were going to have their bodies rot in the graves. On the contrary, Paul believed that all the rest of the believers would be raised (physically) at the last day. One will immediately discern that on this view, the hyperpreterists are still at odds with Paul: Paul believes in a physical resurrection of a believer's body, and he is upset with Hymenaeus, who, like the heretical preterists, does NOT believe in a physical resurrection of (the great majority of) believers' bodies. Seriah's view is perfectly plausible, but I like the argumentation I used earlier to crumple the heretical preterists' position. I like it better because, by assuming the hyperpreterists' premises, and showing that their conclusions aren't internally consistent, one doesn't have to argue over whether Hymenaeus was referring to Mt 27:52-53 or not.

I want to note here that, having seen that the Hymeneans were preaching the same thing the heretical preterists preach today, many will still attempt to let today's hyperpreterists off the hook by distinguishing the heretical preterists from the Hymeneans on the basis of their persons, since their theology can't be distinguished. It is said that Paul was speaking against non-believing heretics, whereas, even though the hyperpreterists are preaching heretical doctrine, they themselves are believers, and therefore we should treat them less harshly than Paul dealt with Hymenaeus. This, of course, is a classical ad hominem argument. Just as it is difficult to defend the truth of the existence of charismatic gifts in the church today because of all the crazy things charismatics say and do, it is equally difficult to attack the heresy of a hyperpreterist who does works of tender love and mercy. So why am I so presumptive to do so?

They spend hours and hours dinning our ears with the very doctrines that the liberals love.

irst, let me point out that it is an unproved assumption that the Hymeneans that Paul attacked were unsaved. In the long history of doctrine, there have been a lot of believers who have believed crazy things. Hymenaeus and Philetus could very well have been the first in a long line of believers in Christ who also believed heretical doctrines. This is especially true if Hymenaeus, when he said the resurrection had already come, was referring to the first-fruits resurrection that happened at Jesus' resurrection. A person who believed this would probably be a believer. And if it be said that if Hymenaeus were preaching a non-physical spiritual resurrection, and therefore he couldn't have been a believer, all I need to do is point out that present-day hyperpreterist Hymenaeans do the same thing, and they are believers. Therefore, it is perfectly possible, and perhaps likely, that Paul was denouncing fellow believers. But that's besides the point. Paul was concerned about the effect the DOCTRINE was having on his flock. He wasn't on a personal vendetta against Hymenaeus and Philetus. He was concerned about the truth, not about winning a personal battle. If we keep our battle against the heretical preterists on that plane, I don't see why anyone should have reason to complain.

Now that we have established that the heretical preterists' views are just as damnable as were those of Hymenaeus and Philetus, that leaves us in the happy position of being able to say things about the hyperpreterists at least as naughty as Paul did. I hesitate to do that, because I am a Southern American, and my culture drills into us that we are oh so polite, in each and every circumstance. If our neighbors come to visit us with their kids, and the little hellions draw all over the walls with crayons, poop on the carpet, and grab the cat by the tail and smash his head up side the wall, we hang around by the door for a half hour while we wait for them to leave, telling them what a great time we had, and would they please come back and see us some time. I would like to burst through my cultural limitations and bluntly hang a few choice epithets on the heretical preterists.

First of all, they are quasi-gnostic. Why? For two reasons. The first is that they don't believe the physical body, or the physical world, is important enough to be redeemed from its physical corruption. The heretical preterists aren't completely gnostic, because they do believe the body was created good, and that it shouldn't be abused with licentiousness, and that it shouldn't be damaged with asceticism. Thank God for small favors.

What really motivates the hyperpreterist is not the love of the truth, but the fear of the (divine) supernatural.

he second reason the hyperpreterists are quasi-gnostics is that they believe that their full-preterist gnosis has been hidden from the whole Christian community for two millennia, and that only they have seen the light, starting, I suppose, with James Stuart Russell in the late nineteenth century. The rest of benighted Christendom has missed it. That's the talk of dispensationalists and crazy people. Now, as someone who holds to house church ecclesiology, I am fully aware that a hyperpreterist could level the same charge at me. He could say that since I am in such a small minority, and since hardly anybody sees what I'm doing as the truth, and since I am claiming to have seen the light concerning the church, therefore I am as gnostic as the hyperpreterists. Well, no I'm not. There have been tons of Christians over the ages who have believed as I do about the doctrine of the church. For example, the entire early church up until the fourth century. For example, the Waldensians. How about the biggest church in the world today, the church in China? In fact, there are so many people who have believed the way I do about church, that John Kennedy has written an entire book about them: The Torch of the Testimony. But consider heretical preterism: over the long course of church history before James Stuart Russell in the late nineteenth century, who has believed this nonsense? Nobody.

The second naughty name which I apply to the consistently foolish preterists is quasi-manichean. The original Manicheans believed that evil existed coeternally with the good. The hyperpreterist quasi-manicheans, unlike the Manicheans, believe that there was no evil present with God at the beginning. However, like the Manicheans, the heretical preterists believe that from now on, evil will always be here. The physical creation, including our bodies, will never be redeemed from it. How depressing.

Ladies and gentlemen, the heretical preterists have denied the historic Christian faith in its essence. Their doctrine is poison. Stay away from it.

Naughty name number three: quasi-liberal. In my mind, there is almost nothing worse than "liberal" that you can call somebody. Whether its politics or religion, the liberal operates from the dark side. Granted, the heretical preterists differ from liberals in some areas. Hyperpreteristsbelieve in the Virgin Birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc. But notice how many beliefs they have in common with theological liberals: (1) no visible return of Jesus, (2) no physical resurrection of the believer, (3) no Judgment Day at the end of the world, (4) the world will go on forever and ever until it peters out, (5) the devil is not active today in the world, and (6) the miraculous is not active today in the church. And what makes the heretical preterists' quasi-liberalism even worse is that they spend hours and hours dinning our ears with the very doctrines that the liberals love. I am convinced that what really motivates the hyperpreterist is not the love of the truth, but the fear of the (divine) supernatural. Heretical preterists are usually highly intelligent rationalists who wouldn't believe a miracle if it happened right in front of their eyes. And incidentally, to call them highly intelligent is not a compliment. The sleazy lawyers that sprung O.J. Simpson were highly intelligent, too. They had to be: they were defending a guilty client.

Ladies and gentlemen, the heretical preterists have denied the historic Christian faith in its essence. Their doctrine is poison. Stay away from it.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

Date:

10 Oct 2002

Time:

18:19:46

Remote User:

 

Comments

I deny the "historic christian faith" as taught by the modern apostates. I deny most of the so-called "foundational doctrines" because they have been manufactured out of whole cloth. To be called a "heretic" (chooser) by such as this one is a badge of distinction that I proudly wear. Unfortunately, most "preterists" rest in their denominational doctrines and refuse to take the matter to its logical conclusion -- the biblical record was never written for the modern era, except in the most general sense of being illustrative of the love of God toward those who deny His goodness.

Date:

12 Oct 2002

Time:

22:53:10

Remote User:

 

Comments

What an Idiot!!!

Date:

14 Oct 2002

Time:

18:01:35

Remote User:

 

Comments

There are some very thoughtful arguments here behind his down-home (and somewhat caustic) style of writing. They ought to be considered very seriously.

Date:

14 Oct 2002

Time:

23:24:12

Remote User:

 

Comments

(1) no visible return of Jesus, Jesus was said to come the same way God came down to judge nations in the old testament. This 'Day of the Lord' happened in 70AD, just like it happened to Babylon, Egypt, and other nations. Each time, God was not physically seen. Yet, God is depicted as riding on a cloud (Isaiah 19:1). It's a matter of interpretation. (2) no physical resurrection of the believer, Not all Christians believe in a physical resurrection. Dallas Willard for example, in his book, "The Divine Conspiracy" believes the body must physically die, before it is raised spiritually. It's not entirely a preterist issue. In anycase, the bible teaches that the body is raised spiritually (1 Cor 15:44), and that the flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 15:50). (3) no Judgment Day at the end of the world, There's good reason for that: There is no end of the physical earth (Ecc 1:4, Ps 78:69, Ps 104:5, Eph 3:21, Luke 1:33, Dan 2:44). Even Van Impe teaches there's no longer an end of the world. (4) the world will go on forever and ever until it peters out, Again there is no end of the world (Gen 8:20-22, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10) (5) the devil is not active today in the world, and Not all preterist agree with that statement. This article does a great job explaining another perspective on the 'binding of Satan': http://www.planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&sid=745&tid=1254&mode=&order=0&thold=0 (6) the miraculous is not active today in the church. Some liberals continue to believe the miraculous is present in the church. It seems as if it's the evangelicals who are the ones that deny the miraculous. And not all preterists agree with cessationism. I personally believe that preterism mightly affirms the continuation of the miraculous. Here's why: 1) The age to come is classified as one that's of the miraculous (Heb 6:5). The greek word for 'powers' is 'dunamis' which is in English means miracles, or miraculous power. 2) The gospel is heavily linked with the miraculous (1 Cor 2:1-5, 1 Thess 1:4) 3) Jesus preached that when the kingdom of God would come within the lifetime of the apostles, it would come with POWER [gk. 'dunamis'] (Mark 9:1). That would probably explain why Paul said the kingdom of God is not of talk but of POWER [gk. 'dunamis'] (1 Cor 4:20). Cessationists are saying the power is either gone, or no longer in use. I'm saying it's here and it never left. And preterism in one way is my defense for it. It's up to the cessationists to give a logical explanation as to why God heals through prayer as the following articles testify to it

Date:

15 Oct 2002

Time:

07:38:36

Remote User:

 

Comments

Amen and Amen. They are heretics! They dont even understand when the New Covenant began or that the Aopostle Paul was justified.

Date:

15 Oct 2002

Time:

17:24:49

Remote User:

 

Comments

This fellow's comments would really upset me if I weren't absolutely, completely, and happily convinced of the validity of the full-preterist position. Never have I felt such joy and freedom since embracing these truths about two years ago. My children are finally truly happy and lack the constant fear they felt under the bondage of dispensationalism. In the past I would have been inclined to be angry at people like this for their rude and presumptuous remarks, but all I can do is feel sorry for them. If the truth makes you free, I am finally free indeed!

Date:

24 Oct 2002

Time:

07:47:39

Comments

ALL preterists are wrong because ALL of them deny that "ALL" in Lk. 24:44 really means ALL. Christ came as the true Israel and therefore ALL of the things in the OT concerning natural Israel were the things concerning Christ that had to be fulfilled. ALL. Not just the things in the first 40 years of natural Israel's existence. ALL of the OT types, from the ancient slaying of the natural lambs (Ex. 12:6) to the natural nation's destruction in AD 70. If that crucial fact ever sinks in, preterists will finally recognize, for example, how foolish it is to claim that first-century Jerusalem was the Babylon of Revelation.

Date:

24 Oct 2002

Time:

09:23:16

Comments

What does "ALL" mean, anyway? Does Romans 1:5 teach that ALL human beings who were not Israelites would receive the salvation from wrath that was part and parcel of the Nation's promise? Does Romans 5:18 teach that ALL human beings would be given "justification of life?" Focusing on the word, "ALL" is a red herring, since God fulfills all of His promises without fail (compare Joshua 21:45). But, can we create two columns, one listing each statement of promise that God made to Abraham or Moses and then list the fulfillment of each promise in the other column? Was Joshua wrong in stating that God had fulfilled "ALL the good promises that the Lord had made to the fathers?" If we accept that the territory promised to Abraham was never completely inherited by his progeny, and apply a literal hermeneutic to Joshua's comments, then ALL of those promises to Abraham were not fulfilled. Relying on a single word to justify a doctrinal viewpoint is not the way to discover what is being taught. The entire Biblical context and mindset of the participants must also be analyzed. -- Steve Smith

Date:

24 Oct 2002

Time:

14:33:52

Comments

Re: ALL -- The old preterist double standard. We're to believe that ALL in Lk. 21:22 means ALL but that ALL in Lk. 24:44 doesn't mean ALL. How convenient.

Date:

24 Oct 2002

Time:

15:20:10

Comments

Re: ALL -- Let's consider just one example of the things in Lk. 24:44. Because of DISOBEDIENCE there were three typifying times of great tribulation or trouble in natural Israel's history that were designed by God to have spiritual fulfillments involving OBEDIENT spiritual Israel (Christ and the church) -- the first one (Acts 7:11) involving the natural Israelites' TEMPORARY removal into the world (Egypt in that day), the second one (Jer. 30:7) again involving their TEMPORARY removal into the world (Babylon in that day), and the third one (Mt. 24:21) involving their PERMANENT removal into the world (the Roman Empire in that day). It's a pretty safe bet that preterists haven't a clue about the spiritual fulfillment of each of those three typifying times of tribulation by Christ and the church.

Date:

24 Oct 2002

Time:

21:17:59

Comments

So many presumptions.

Date:

25 Oct 2002

Time:

06:05:25

Comments

Not presumptions -- just a few of "the mysteries of the kingdom" (Mt. 13:11) that preterists have never understood.

Date:

25 Oct 2002

Time:

20:34:18

Comments

Re: the three typifying times of tribulation or trouble in the parenthetic history of rebellious and disobedient natural Israel (above), the first (Acts 7:11) involved the famine of corn, the second (Jer. 30:7) involved "not a famine of bread...but of hearing the words of the Lord" (Amos 8:11), and the third and final one (Mt. 24:21) involved the natural Israelites' failure to hear Christ, the true Word of God. All three were TYPES of three times of tribulation involving spiritual Israel (Christ and the church).

Date:

26 Oct 2002

Time:

16:24:47

Comments

First, the full disclosure: I consider myself a partial preterist, not a hyper-. That the body of Jesus himself was restored and that in it He left the tomb is testified to by Scripture... this was a fulfillment of the promise that "your Holy One shall not see decay." On this score I have no questions or doubts. I don't know yet where to come down on this particular controversy, but I do want to ask a question, an honest one, about Mr. Trotter's ideas concerning "the physical resurrection of the body" of the believer (sometime) after death: If by that phrase Mr. Trotter means resurrection in the sense of bodies flying up out of the graves, how could someone who has been cremated be "physically" resurrected? I ask the same concerning a hypothetical believer who has been vaporized in an explosion, most especially a nuclear one --Nagasaki was the center of Christianity in Japan, so I think it very likely, probably a certainity, that this has occured... and given the ongoing proliferation of nuclear weapons, likely to happen again. Would Mr. Trotter please define precisely what he means by the phrase, "physical resurrection of the body?" Does it mean, as he seems to say, that whatever physically remains of one's body (bones?) at the time of resurrection (at The Judgement Day?) be reconstituted in the fabric of the glorified body of the resurrected one? Isn't "the physical resurrection of the body" a rather problematic concept?

Date:

27 Oct 2002

Time:

15:16:31

Comments

What planet is this guy from? He is typical in his denial of clear cut timing passages.

Date:

27 Oct 2002

Time:

22:41:04

Comments

I would like to ask Dan Trotter this question: Why did you produce so much text to convince us readers that Hymenaeus couldn't be causing Paul to get bent out of shape over a difference in timing between their views of the resurrection, when in the tenth paragraph of your article you said, "What he (Paul) was upset about was that in {Hymenaeus} saying that the resurrection had already come, Hymenaeus was also saying that there wasn't going to be another one, which sent Paul ballistic, which sends me ballistic, and which ought to get you pretty riled up too." This shows the timing of the resurrection is important to Paul in your own words! Notice this has nothing to do with the nature of the resurrection. You said Paul was bent out of shape because Hymenaeus was promoting the wrong timing of the resurrection. Yet in your fourth paragraph you said it is impossible for Paul to be disagreeing with Hymenaeus and Philetus over the timing of the resurrection. It can't be impossible AND Paul went ballistic because of it. Your response in the tenth paragraph makes it clear you see that Paul's words mean what they plainly say in 2 Tim 2:18, "...They (Hymenaeus and Philetus) say that the resurrection has already taken place." Spencer Morrison

Date:

30 Oct 2002

Time:

14:11:02

Comments

I have been a consistent Preterist for over 35 years and nothing that I have heard from futurists has or ever will change my mind. It does amaze me how Christians stoop to the same techniques as politicians -- when your position is weak, resort to name-calling. To those who use Jesus resurrection as proof of our physical resurrection, consider Jesus body after the resurrection. In John 20:7 we see that he had the sword mark in His side. But reading John 19:33,34, he was stabbed after He died. Does that mean that our resurrection body will be just like it was after we died but before we were buried? Obviously this is not a possibility.

Date:

31 Oct 2002

Time:

09:49:17

Comments

This is a wonderful article, thank you Mr. Trotter. Most of the comments against it were sad examples of desparately looking for a loophole via pendantic literalistic interpretation of some of your comments ironically enough. Others of the comments were just plain dumb.

Date:

01 Nov 2002

Time:

17:21:47

Comments

The author of this article and many of you who have responded make it clear that you think it's "OK" to say the very nastiest things to those with whom you disagree. To inflame and hurl out the grossest insults is your lesson. I wonder what the article would have accomplished without the hatred. The authors of the "just plain dumb" comment and of the article have a great tag team of worthless insults.

Date:

01 Nov 2002

Time:

18:09:52

Comments

Trotter says : But notice how many beliefs they have in common with theological liberals: (1) no visible return of Jesus, <<<<<< It was visible, just not in YOUR eyes.>>>. (2) no physical resurrection of the believer, <<<<< A typical literalist preoccupation with one's PHYSICAL BODY. What is it about your BODY that is so important, Mr. Trotter? The kingdom of God is not visible nor physical, yet you probably believe in it's viability. (3) no Judgment Day at the end of the world, <<<<<< What promotes your need for a final day judgment, Mr. Trotter ? Do you desire to see men cast into hell ? If you believe in the finished work of the Cross, then judgment should not even be a concern for you, as your's and all other's judgment has been taken by Him, Who could only carry it.>>>> (4) the world will go on forever and ever until it peters out, <<<< Who says it will "peter out?" It will go on through the "ages of ages." Anything beyond that is God's concern, not man's. >>>>> (5) the devil is not active today in the world,<<<<<<< Again, "the devil" was defeated at the Cross, and is ONLY active in YOUR adamic,dually oriented mind. In the meantime, scripture clearly states that satan resides in the pit. The question that you need consider, Mr. Trotter, is where that PIT is? and (6) the miraculous is not active today in the church. <<<<<< Well, the fact of the matter is that the miraculous IS NOT ACTIVE in the so called church today. You are quick to notice EVIL's presence in the earth today, then why do you not notice that very few,if any folks are miraculously healed today, "except in Beny Hinn crusades." (And other lying/scam artist TV evangelist taking simple and stupid folk's money who will believe anything if it tickles the flesh.) Mr. Trotter, in all your learning, you need to pray for an "opening of your eyes." (Ephesians 1:17,18) Other than that, I get the feeling that your real concern is not the refutation of preterism, but the need to uphold " the miraculous," for you have only been exposed to preterists who are of a cessationist slant. There are actually "charismatic preterists" in the land. But, more importantly, they have, with all other preterist believers, faced the undenialable truth of the scripture which "says what it means and means what it says," especially concerning TIME factors. In the meantime, Mr.Trotter, be blessed./JR

Date:

06 Nov 2002

Time:

07:17:34

Comments

Dear Dr. Trotter: Greetings to you in the name of the Lord! I have read your article "WHY IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO CALL HERETICAL PRETERISTS NAUGHTY NAMES." Let me introduce myself as a preterist that has been called an abundance of naughty names recently, and, after reading your article, I'll add yours to my list (big grin here). I could see that you have studied the arguments of full preterism and for this I commend you. Most of the opposition I have faced has come from those who would not even open the Bible with me to examine my views and correct me if needed. I was called "naughty names" and denounced for my departure from historic orthodoxy by both denominational leaders and a small group in my former church. One man in a public meeting went on for over 20 minutes about my departure from the creeds. So vicious was his tirade, that my teenage daughter left the room crying. Life was made pretty miserable for me and my family to the point that I resigned from the church which I pastored for over 10 years and I have left the denomination I was in for over 30 years. Which brings me to your article. I cannot fault you wanting to defend the truth; the irony here is that full preterists would also claim to be defending truth. But could I point out a few things that you might want to consider in your defense of the truth?

1. You seem to have exempted yourself from the task of "speaking truth in love" on the basis of Paul's dealings with Hymenaeus and Philetus (citing Paul in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 and Tina Turner). In fact, your article seems to be more of a defense of why you can have your say in a nasty manner. You say that you don't want people to complain since you're only keeping this on a level of "doctrine." But is the Spirit of Christ unwilling or unable to lead us to deal with issues of doctrine while exibiting the love of Christ? Does the bible teach that "love for the brethren" gets set aside when matters of doctrine are involved? No doubt, Paul used some salty language in dealing with threats to the gospel. But is there no application of Paul's words in that same chapter vs. 23-26? We don't know much more of Hymenaeus than what we read of here and in 1 Timothy 1. Did Paul never sit down with Hymenaeus to try to restore him (violating his own exhortation in Gal. 6:1)? Did Paul believe humility, patience, gentleness and loving forbearance (Eph. 4:2) did not apply to Hymenaeus? You assume much about Paul's dealing with Hymenaeus in 1 & 2 Timothy without knowing the history of the conflict. Could it be that Paul resorted to his language in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 only because Hymeneaus did not respond to patient, gentle attempts to correct him? Based on all that Paul says on love among the brethren, it's a compelling thought.

2. You make an interesting statement: "'Love' is the first word out of the mouth of someone about to lose a theological argument." Was Jesus on the verge of losing a theological argument when He gave the New Commandment in John 13:34, 35? Was Paul unable to defend the gospel, hence his statement, "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another?" Was John being theologically whipped when he equates not loving your brother with walking in darkness (1 John 2:9-11) or failure to love as murdering your brother (1 John 3:15)? If you consider "heretical preterists" as saved, converted, bought by Christ's blood and your brothers in Christ, does this not make your attitude toward them one that is just as damnable a heresy if not more than "heretical preterism." One reproof I would have to those who opposed me was that they were intent on upholding the integrity of the Scriptures in one area by denying the plain revelation of God in another. Please, brother, don't defend what you believe the Bible teaches about Christ's coming while denying what it says about loving one another. Have you considered that "love" is the first word out of the mouth of someone who sees that you are failing in love? (By the way, why couldn't it be an equally true statement that, "Naughty names are the first words out of the mouth of someone who doesn't have a good argument?")

3. The strength of your article seems to depend mainly on the use of "naughty names," slanted rhetoric and guilt-by-association. I'm not saying here that you don't present cogent arguments that preterists ought to consider. What I'm saying is that if you are wanting to really turn a preterist from his ways, -- biblical restoration -- calling him names and labeling his defense "slick rhetorical tricks" is not a good substitute for reasoned, patient and loving dialogue. Here's a question I put to one of my opposers: "Suppose you wanted to turn me from preterism, and the way to do it would be to commit to two, maybe three years of loving, patient opening of the Scriptures with me, would you be willing to do it?" He decided "no" as a few days later he publicly denounced me. Calling those with whom you disagree names, comparing them to "sleazy lawyers" and dismissing them outright is an easier out than persevering in love. Let's put it this way: If you do have good arguments that might turn me, I have a hard time seeing them through the smoke of your malice.

4. Please think about the kind of disciple you are creating by your spirit in this article. No doubt you hope to influence people to think as you think since you think you are thinking according to God's word. I have no problem with this; but are you willing to live with those who imitate your spirit of "naughty name" calling and vitriol? Are you not teaching them that it is okay to viciously ostracize those with whom they disagree, even perhaps in areas not related to eschatology? You seem to be pretty intoxicated with your newfound liberty to call "heretical preterists" names. I hope this compassionless drunkenness doesn't affect your flock.

5. Please remember certain things about the "heretical preterists" that you are addressing. They are, implicitly by your own admission, those for whom Jesus paid a tremendous price -- His own blood. If they are precious to Him, shouldn't they be to you, too? We walk on very dangerous ground when we deface a treasure for which the Lord paid a great price. Before I address a person in opposition to me, I think of my daughter who ran out of the room crying that one night. I don't want another man's family hurt because of my poisonous tongue or pen (word processor?) In conclusion, dear brother, please reconsider your acidic attacks. You mention -- I assume favorably -- the humble Waldensians, but you come across more as the Inquisitors that condemned and persecuted them. This is wrong; and it is wrong whether it is an attitude held by a futurist or a preterist. I would say the same thing to a preterist I said to you who exhibited the same spirit. If you are a man given to pride, my time has been wasted here. But I have better hopes for God's people that we will all approach this matter in a spirit of humility. Please consider these words in light of the cross of our Savior.

Date:

07 Nov 2002

Time:

16:01:21

Comments

In response to the person above who wrote, "...nothing that I have heard from futurists has or ever will change my mind." What use then is it for any futurist to even bother trying to persuade you? We should not be so open minded that our brains fall out, but we should not be so close minded that new truth cannot get in, either. In hope that you did not really mean that, I submit the following to you, written by Justin Martyr nearly two millenia ago. "Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again,and the lame walking by His word. All things which the Savior did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, “that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear,” and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed." But when the scripture says that we shall be like Him, it does not mean like Him in EVERY respect (such as His scars), for then we would no longer be unique individuals. Surely, our individuality will be preserved in the resurrection.

Date:

26 Nov 2002

Time:

20:04:10

Comments

I have been a Christian for 26 years and have taught in a number of Churches. I have never really been interested in eschatology after seeing what was offered. However, when listening to my Bible tapes, I would become a little confused about the timeline statements that the Lord made about His coming. For example: Matt 16:27-28 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (KJV) Matt 24:34 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (KJV) If I were a first century disciple and listening to Jesus there is only one way I would interpret these verses. Only one. That is why His disciples used the words: "soon" "quickly" "at the door" "about to happen",etc. Who is more literal in believing that Jesus meant exactly what He said? Preterists or Futurists? In Christ, Bob

Date:

12 Dec 2002

Time:

16:23:06

Comments

I just have a few comments on your article. you ended with the following comment, "the heretical preterists have denied the historic christian faith in its essence". this is probably true in that preterists choose not to uphold the traditions of men (early church fathers, creeds) as pertaining to their interpretation of what the bible says, when it contradicts the truth of the bible.

I suggest you have a look at matthew 15:1-9.   you should really do more study on a subject before you attack it. preterists believe paul had a problem with hymenaeus not just because his timing of the resurrection was incorrect but also because of the implications of believing the resurrection had already occured. preterists believe the bibles eschatology should be interpreted in a covenantal manner rather than an historic one. tied to the resurrection is the judgement and the "new heavens and the new earth". for hymenaeus to teach that the resurrection already occured meant that the new heavens and earth had already come. this was a problem because the old covenant world of israel: the temple, the law, and the sacrifices were still in existence at that time. the jews believed that all was good because nothing had changed since the beginning of the creation. this was seen as an endorsement of the false gospel preached by the judiazers which went against pauls teaching of a torah free gospel. the "new heavens and earth" are in contrast to the "old heavens and earth" as are the "new covenant" and the "old covenant". hebrews 8:13 states "in that he says "a new covenant" he has made the first obsolete. now what is BECOMING obsolite and growing old is READY TO VANISH AWAY. the old covenant world was on its way out, but still kicking. the old covenant world of israel came to an end with the destruction of jerusalem, its temple, and its law. no longer could the jews teach another gospel than that taught by christ, for salvation is through faith apart from the deeds of the law. paul shunned hymanaeus and philetus so perhaps God would grant them repentance, so that they might know the truth, and that they might come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will (2 tim 2:25-26). paul also shunned them to stop their false teaching which was causing others to leave the faith. I hope maybe you are now more informed of the subject you chose to attack. I once believed as you do, but in studying the things I professed to believe I came to the conclusion as so many others are also doing, preterists, that what I was taught was in my opinion unbiblical. you would do well to study your own beliefs as I did. "to have faith without understanding is foolishness" as I've found out. paul says in 2tim 2:25 "in humility correcting those who are in opposition". this is not preterists verses premill tribs, or your right-I'm wrong, this is the search for the scriptural truth of eschatology. thanks.

Date:

29 Dec 2002

Time:

21:56:17

Comments

It is obvious from your comments that you have not searched the scripture to see if these things are so. I would be interested in how you deal with the time statements and the "liberals" when they say that Jesus didn't do what he said he would do when he said he would do it. Also, it is very clear from Paul's teachings that he did not believe in a phsical resurrection. IF you would read I Corinthians 15 you would see that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. That he separated the physical and the spiritual. The historic evidence of A.D. 70 along with the testimony of the Old Testament of the "coming" of the Lord. In the clouds, and the representation of the heaven and the earth. If you would spend any time studying that you would understand more clearly the wonderful fulfillment of the prophecy of our Lord. My next question would be the scripture clearly teaches that the gifts, (tongues, healings, etc.) would continue until he comes. If he has not come then we still have the gifts available. Also, he states in Ephesians 4: 12-13 that he gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, & teacher until we come in the unity of the faith which is at his coming. Well, all the churches have the last three but most of them don't claim the other two. They are inseparable. If you believe that we still have all the offices (if you are charismatic and believe the gifts are still here) then you have a real problem with the apostles. Paul states that a requirement of being an apostle is having seen the risen Lord. If that is the case then we have some 2000 year old apostles running around somewhere, (maybe in your church) and I find that hard to believe. If you have a desire to seek the truth or to help someone who is in error and follow the scripture then you should set down with a "heretical preterist" like myself that you like to call us and help us see the truth. May God direct both of us. However, I have found in my experience that NO futurist wants to go to the Word of God to find the answers on who is right. They just want to holler heresy from afar where they feel safe. I am sorry you feel this way but I can't help you. I am so glad that God has set me free from all the baggage of the futurist view and has shown me the fulfillment of the kingdom in which I live. Praise God!

Date:

05 Jan 2003

Time:

05:25:42

Comments

Sometimes "heretic" is the first word out of the mouth of a person about to lose an argument!

Date:

08 Feb 2003

Time:

04:28:01

Comments

If there was ever an article epitomizing non-exegesis, I give the prize to Crapper, er, uh, Cropper. It is always amazing when ignorance is able to identify intelligence, as Cropper does so well. Ward Fenley

Date:

08 Feb 2003

Time:

04:30:58

Comments

Heh, excuse me, in all the excitement I mistook Trotter for Crapper, er, Cropper. An easy mistake to make. ;)

Date:

09 Feb 2003

Time:

14:49:06

Comments

When I read this article, I noticed his argument against timming and it is no argument at all. It held no logic just assertion. Then in reading the comments, I came across Spencer Morissons' comment and he had already addressed this and in much better use of words than I could have. But there is one more thing I would like to add. ?When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.? (Deuteronomy 18:22) If Jesus did not do as he said he was going to do when he said he was going to do it, he is proven to be a false prophet and we do not need to be concerned with him. But, if he is to be proven true then it is the preterist position that must be affirmed. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In Christian Love, Douglas E. Radcliffe

Date:

12 Mar 2003

Time:

22:23:38

Comments

This man who is against preterism is a great name-caller and very bitter! the only thing he doe not do is use scripture consistently. Would he agree to an HONEST debate?

Date:

22 Jun 2003

Time:

20:12:22

Comments

I have a question to you benny! you are saying that you are a man of God. mayebe you are but I do have a question for you. In the bible it is said that whenever Lord Jesus Christ did a miracle or whenever an angel came on earth the men were falling to them feets. Now I want to know why when God do those miracles through you as you pretend all healled people fall on their back wich is like opposed to the way jesus acted in a way. If you could tell me please I willbe verry happy to find out why after they are healed people fall on their back and not in front. Just curios. Please send me an answer to roberto@riversongs.com God bless ya ....

Date:

01 Jul 2003

Time:

01:45:41

Comments

Hymenaeus and Philetus--Resurrection Past already--Grk:Perfect Infinitive. I believe we are in 'The Chilia' now but I think the above presentation is not Paul's argument. What people fail to realize is that the resurrection needs to be everyday in the life of The Believer. I think 'Free-Will' Baptist are guilty of Resurrection past Theology. They Accept Christ as their Personal Saviour after saying a sinners prayer and that's it. OSAS! If you are Elect you have to die daily to self and rise daily in the power of The Resurrection. I am seeing them preaching the opposite of what people think they were. To overthrow the faith is apostasis. IOW-Take off that heavy Cross because you are already saved you 'got-saved' and that is all there is to it. No you have to Take Up Cross Daily, Deny Self, and follow Jesus. Faith is the hupostasis-staying under the Cross bearing it daily. If they were Preaching what you think they were preaching Paul would have used an Aorist Tense infinitive. As for me, I don't want my Soul, Spirit, or Glorified Body to be tormented in Hell. To tell me The Rapture was in 70 A.D. would not cause me to take off my Cross. I still have a Soul/Spirit that is needing to be with Jesus. I really would like this discussion to move toward Greek Grammar so we know just what in the hell Hymenaeus and Philetus were preaching. I told you what I am hearing. I am ready to change my mind but let's not use an English translation to pre-suppose . Thank You for Your Time, BTW-I think Spurgeon correct. I am no Preterist but do not want to be anticipating past events happening in the future:) I get frustrated with someone who says, "In the Mill Jesus will be on his throne in Jerusalem while people are making animal sacrifices:) I do believe there is some confusion in dipensationalism.

Date:

02 Nov 2003

Time:

10:36:30

Comments

hi, Can you please add a link to my new site called eCardica.com. Thank you very much, Mike S

Date:

18 May 2004

Time:

10:29:15

Comments

If "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", according to Mark Twain,...Then name calling would be the last refuge of a knee-jerk futurist who does not have an argument from scripture. I find that most Preterists are kind and patient with their inflamed futurist brethren, due to the fact that they have the scripture on their side and they need not worry about "winning the argument", the Spirit will convince hearts. It is not our job to convince the futurist of his error, that, God will take care of. But to faithfully proclaim the actual texts of the word of God...I see the Preterist doing this more and more, and the name-calling, Knee-jerk futurist's, doing it less and less. Continue your discussion with Grace. JR

Date:

08 Dec 2004

Time:

11:44:02

Comments

I'd like to go along with 06 Nov 2002 07:17:34. Lets chill out and let the love in. We're brothers here, looking for truth. Let us not divide ourselves according to our own tempers and wills of the flesh. As it is written in Hebrews 10:25, "not forsaking our own (AW)assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." I've never been happpier than I've been after learning of Christ's true purpose. It's stimulated me spiritually and given me new hope. I've been givin a glorious revelation and I pray for you to see it too. You are my brother and I love you. Please extend the same love to me and all of your brothers in Christ. "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." - Proverbs 13:12 -Bill

Date:

23 Feb 2005

Time:

21:54:18

Comments

Likewise it is OK to be discussed with all Calvinism. It is a lie from the pit and false philosophy. All philosophers were child molesters, the Didache' stated, "do not corrupt boys". that is why Jesus hid himself. Carmen