|
Bryan Lewis (2010) "I
am among those Preterist who realize that (HyP) Preterism is absolutely not
Orthodox Christianity. It is my opinion, there is no fellowship between the
two now, nor has their ever been historically." (Am
I a Christian?)

Lack of Christological Focus Hurts Christianity

IS J.H. NOYES A HYPER PRETERIST?
|
STUDY ARCHIVE

Main Page














EARLY CHURCH
Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St.
Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus
David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce
Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards
E.B.
Elliott
Heinrich Ewald Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Steve Gregg
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull Johann Lange
Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther
James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink
Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius
Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John
Smith
C.H. Spurgeon Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield
Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright
John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation
in Past)
Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas
Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert
Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P.
Warren Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward

FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st
C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any
Particular Eschatology)
Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm.
Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd E.B. Elliott
G.S.
Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice
Benjamin Jowett John N.D. Kelly
Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce Eduard Reuss
J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith
Norman Snaith
"Televangelists" Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord
Quakers :
George Fox |
Margaret Fell (Fox) |
Isaac Penington
PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM |
PRETERIST-IDEALISM
|
|
Hyper Preterist Views,
Defined by other Hyper Preterists: Universalism (Don
Preston, Preterist Alliance); Pantelism (Preterist
Alliance); Comprehensive Annihilationism (Preterist
Alliance); Max King's Doctrine (i.e. CBV - "Corporate Body
View" - Simmons); Covenant Creation
(SGP); Consistent Cessationism (Fenley,
Preston, Stevens); Jesus sent only to Israel (Fenley,
Preterist Alliance);
Literal Rapture View (Sullivan)
When is Preterism taken too far?
Is it possible to take fulfillment beyond the
point of Scriptural warrant? At what point has the
declaration of past
fulfillment overstepped biblical bounds?
Naturally, it depends on who you ask. For
instance, strict Futurists would say that making
AD70 the fulfillment of any of the Olivet
Discourse (as opposed to those events serving as a
type of their future tribulation) would be
taking fulfillment too far.
There are all kinds of "lines in the
sand" drawn in an attempt to define hyper preterism.
Listed below are as many as could be found. If
you have one, or have found one not listed, please share.
The official definition of Hyper
Preterist at PreteristArchive.com is: "A) That view which
consistently sees the consummation of the ages, and the
utter terminal date for all Bible prophecy, in AD70.
Non-Preterists can hold to similar HyP aspects of AD70
fulfillment, but only HyPs consistently appeal to AD70 as the coming of the
perfect. Those with
dangerous doctrines based upon total AD70 fulfillment - such as
Noyes - are likewise grouped in this
classification. B) According to known literature, this class did not
emerge until the middle of the 19th century, though it could be said to have been anticipated in the writings of certain Modern Preterists, and
in the
writings of the
Preterist Universalists. The earliest known undeniably Full Preterist/Systematic
Hyper Preterist book was written in 1845, though the author later abandoned the
view. C) Believes that all Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled by AD70, including the Parousia, General
Judgment and General Resurrection -- which places this view outside of general church "orthodoxy." (Narrowest Range in Time
and Doctrine - Earliest Known Representatives,
Townley
(1845) and
Desprez (1854), both left the view) "
EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED
DEFINITIONS FOR HYPER PRETERISM:
|
Second Peter 3 & AD70
A Litmus Test for Hyper Preterism?
No.
"Anyone who
holds II Peter 3 as AD70 is a hyper-preterist"
C.J. Seraiah,
A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism
"He sets
forth the destruction of that cursed Nation
and their City in those terms that Christ
had done, Matt. 24. and that the
Scripture doth elsewhere, Deut.
32.22,23.24. Jer. 4.23. namely as the
destruction of the whole world, The
heavens passing away, the elements melting,
and the earth burnt up, &c. And
accordingly speaks of a new heaven and a
new earth, from Isa. 65.17. a new
state of the Church under the Gospel among
the Gentiles, when this old world of the
Jews state should be dissolved." (John
Lightfoot, Westminster Assembly Divine)

"Seraiah Hyper-Preterist" List
John Owen,
John Brown,
John
Lightfoot,
Gary DeMar, Cornelius Vanderwaal, Roderick Campbell,
David Chilton in Days of Vengeance
(a book endorsed by C.J. Seraiah)
Scholars differ
on what the Bible says about the End Times (2009) "The only
views that qualify as unorthodox are those that deny a future coming
of Christ, Russell D. Moore, senior vice president for academic
administration and dean of the theology school at Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said. "Any view that does
not hold to a future day of what the church has called 'the
resurrection of the flesh' is outside the bounds of Christian
orthodoxy," Moore said. "Christians have and will continue to
disagree about whether some of the events of Matthew 25 or Mark 13
or the book of Revelation were fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem.
That can be a disagreement among brothers.
-
"As Preterists, we.." "I am
just asking why, as Preterists, we are applying that
scripture to us now? "
-
"We, as Preterists" -
If we as preterists say
the last day has happened, then logically THE Resurrection
has happened – whatever it was."
|
"hyper-preterism"
defined...
and self applied by Full Preterist Book:
"It may surprise students of Biblical theology: When we combine the
eschatological teachings of the great theologians of the Reformed
church throughout the centuries, we arrive at "hyper-preterism":

(A
House Divided Back Book Cover)
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD
FULL PRETERISM
-
All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70
-
Atonement Incomplete at Cross ;
Complete at AD70
-
The Supernatural Power of Evil
Ended in AD70
-
The Spirit of Antichrist was
Destroyed in AD70
-
"The Consummation of the Ages"
Came in AD70
-
"The Millennium" is in the Past, From
AD30 to AD70
-
Nothing to be Resurrected From
in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed
-
The Christian Age Began in AD70
; Earth Will Never End
-
"The Day of the Lord" was Israel's
Destruction ending in AD70
-
The "Second Coming" of Jesus
Christ Took Place in AD70-ish
-
The Great Judgment took place
in AD70 ; No Future Judgment
-
The Law, Death, Sin, Devil,
Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70
-
"The Resurrection"
of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken
Place in AD70
-
The Context of the Entire Bible
is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
(under construction)
-
Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)
-
The Lord's Prayer was for Pre-AD70
Era (Cessationism)
-
The Lord's Supper was for Pre-AD70
Era (Cessationism)
-
The Holy Spirit's Paraclete Work
Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)
-
The Consummation in AD70 Caused
Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)
-
The Resurrection in AD70 Changed
the "Constitutional Principle" of Marriage (Noyesism)
-
Israel and Humanity Delivered into
Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)
-
The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All
of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)
-
Adam's Sin No Longer Imputed in
Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)
-
When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to
the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive
Grace?)
-
The Book of Genesis is an
Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical
Man (Covenantal Preterism)
|
These are just two examples of an
attempt to quantify "hyper preterism". Historical preterists would say that declaring
the parousia, great white throne judgment, and
general resurrection to be strictly in the past
crosses the line into hyper preterism -- and
wouldn't the entirety of (non full-pret)
Christianity throughout all ages agree at
least that far? Many, in fact, would
go much farther, declaring that anyone who
taught that the coming, judgment and
resurrection of the dead were past events are
outside of the Christian faith altogether.
However, what makes the discussion more
interesting is that even full preterists believe
that there is some point where fulfillment
has been taken too far. A
virtually unanimous example of this would
include the declarations by certain full
preterists that the gospel was only for the
pre-AD70 era. (Less consensus is found on
the issues of the cessation of baptism and the
Lord's Supper.) First, then,
there is no legitimate grounds for denying that there is such a
thing as hyper preterism.
Denying that such a line exists is purely the
politics of hyperpreterism.
Secondary is the issue of whether or not hyper preterism is worthy to be held in contempt.
Another consideration is this: If such
large segments of preterists are actually hyper
preterists, then what is true preterism?
This page will explore these concerns by
posting all definitions of hyper preterism
found online or in books. Various
possibilities will be offered for the definition and identification of "hyper preterism,"
using full preterist assertions as the grounds for investigation.
Full preterists are encouraged to participate by either posting assent or dissent regarding whether these assertions should qualify
as hyper preterism... and whether that is grounds for separation.
Lack of dissent, or the belittling of the investigation, would seem to
imply consent. If anyone now disclaims comments posted
here that they have made in the past, I will gladly make note of that
shift away from hyper preterism in the appropriate place.
WHY DOES THE HYPER-PRETERIST
INVESTIGATION DEMAND ATTENTION?
-
#1: Because Full Preterism is
absolutely not historical Christianity. There is no fellowship
between the two now, nor has their been historically.
-
Because few really believe
that every wind of preterist doctrine is just "another legitimate
alternative."
-
Because denying hyper
preterism exists (or belittling its investigation) encourages the
accumulation of error.
-
Because denying hyper
preterism exists (or belittling its investigation) discourages
Futurists, etc., from
studying preterism.
-
Because denying (or tolerating those who deny) the
necessity for faith, hope and expectation (and the work of the Holy
Spirit) in the Christian life today, just might be working an
overthrow of people's faith and/or of Christianity.
-
Because if it isn't true that
AD30 was insufficient, and that so much ceased in AD70, then a horrible error is
being spread.
-
Because if eschatology and
salvation are so closely linked, grievous errors in one would result
in
grievous errors in the other.
-
Because a growing number of
reasonable former full preterists are saying that the system is
fundamentally flawed.
"One thing I do know is
Reformed theology, and I have tried to square them. But,
from Calvin to Berkhof, from Clark to Reymond, it can't
be done. So, when you say, you are coming from a
Reformed perspective and that it disagrees with FP, SURE
IT DOES! And? The problem is that a Reformed
soteriology (especially the doctrine of the intermediate
state, and what happens to the Chrsitian soul after
death) is abysmal. The Framework of Fulfilled
Eschatology informs me of the framework of soteriology.
You can't have our cake and eat it, too. That's why I
would become Roman Catholic and Premillennial (adopting
Justin, Irenaeus and a host of others)."
Sam Frost, August 17, 2009
EARLY APPEARANCES OF A "HYPER" PRETERISM
-
Quarterly Journal of Prophecy
(1856) "The author maintains that the key to the
Apocalypse is, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the
second coming of Christ, and that there is no other
advent of Christ to be expected (Lecture xvi.) He is an
ultra-preterist.
Those who believe in a literal coming of the Lord to
judgment, yet to take place, he condemns in language
sufficiently strong. Any system (millenarian or not)
that takes for granted a future advent of Christ, is
founded on " strained interpretations"— " patchings of
the Word of God"—" positions plainly untenable."
Whereas, his own doctrine (that there is no advent) is written as with a sunbeam, and the whole body of the
Scriptures coincides with it (p. 431). " (vol. 22,
p. 98)
HYPER PRETERISM - DENIED BY HYPER PRETERISTS
 |
Dan Harden |
|
"It has become in fashion to add the prefix
"hyper" to a view that one feels goes in an
acceptable direction but goes too far. It is
largely illusion. You are right, there is no
such thing as "Hyper-Calvinism", and while I
think there might be a case for overextending
the basics of Preterism, I think it is rather
hard to pinpoint. Anybody who sees some passages
as Preterist but reject other passages as having
relevant time indicators tends to resort to the
over-used prefix "hyper". (PretCosmos
Yahoo Group) |
 |
Walt Hibbard |
|
"When I saw that Ken framed his paper around
such emotionally-charged words as "hyper-preterism,"
"heterodox," "failure," "errors," etc., I was
disappointed. Such language has the effect of
discouraging bright young students of the
Scriptures from pursuing advanced eschatological
studies which may take them beyond the generally
accepted creedal formulations." (A Response to
Ken Gentry) |
 |
Mike Sullivan |
|
"Gentry, Mathison, and North use the "Hyper-Preterist"
slur, because they too are very close to
crossing the creedal line of their
denominations. They also know we make them look
really bad to the objective reader because we
expose the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of
their hermeneutics. So they use "spoofing"
and scare tactics and duck debates etc."
(PretCosmos
Yahoo Group) |
HYPER PRETERISM - DEFINED BY HYPER PRETERISTS
Bryan Lewis (2010) "I
am among those Preterist who realize that (HyP) Preterism is absolutely not
Orthodox Christianity. It is my opinion, there is no fellowship between the
two now, nor has their ever been historically." (Am
I a Christian?)
This list is in
the process of containing every known comment by a full
preterist on the subject of hyper preterism (or equivalent
terms). Those FPs who offer a definition (or
characteristics) of hyper preterism will be given a star.
Those that deny there to be such a thing - or belittle the
investigation - will be given a whammy. Hopefully, it can
be agreed by everyone else that denying the existence of hyper
preterism is worthy of correction. To dismiss the
term simply because one does not like the connotation is an elephant in the living room of full preterism,
and the sense of denial inherent in this course is indicative of
the overall problem with full preterism's theological
irresponsibility : "Full Preterism is also known by
several other names: Consistent Preterism, Covenant Eschatology,
Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full
Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full
Preterists).." (Wikipedia Entry for "Preterism")

Jason
Bradfield,
Keith Mathison
(2009)
-
"If the debate here is
whether or not John Noyes was a hyper-preterist,
then obviously our first and most important task is
to define what is meant by hyper-preterist. We
certainly can’t answer our question if we don’t know
what we are looking for. So what is hyper-preterism
according to Mathison? Mathison tells us:
While differing
among themselves on numerous details, proponents of
this doctrine are united in teaching the most basic
thesis of hyper-preterism, namely that the Second
Coming of Christ and the events associated with it
(e.g. the general resurrection and the final
judgment) occurred during the first century
The next obvious
step is to then examine the writings of Noyes and
find out if he taught the above, namely, that the
Second Coming of Christ, the general resurrection,
and the final judgment occurred during the first
century. With that clear definition before us, let
us now examine quotes that Mathison provided and ask
if it fits that definition" (The Oneida Community
and Hyper Preterism )

Ward Fenley
-
Full vs Hyperpreterism
and Abiding Faith (2009)
"Hyperpreterism is the belief that no one after AD 70 will have eternal life
and that no soteriological benefit (i.e. salvific benefit) extends beyond AD
70. They (hyperpreterists) may believe that those particular events
happened, but because they do not believe they apply past AD 70, they, by
sheer virtue of their own confession, do not believe in the need for
forgiveness of sin. After all, if you don't believe Christ died for you
since you were born after AD 70, then you do not believe the Gospel as it is
clearly portrayed in the Scriptures"
-
"Hyper-Preterism
is the belief that all soteriological events were consummated and ended
by AD70 and that none of the soteriological benefits of Christ's
redemptive work apply post AD70. "

Sam Frost
(Now a former full preterist)
-
(10/6/10)
"Voila! See, I told you
so. IT'S ALL BEEN FULFILLED....there is no
"ongoing" anything.....which makes me
wonder.....what is the AGE TO COME if not POST
A.D. 70? See, they have EVERYTHING relating to
the PROMISES to Israel DONE by A.D. 70.....there
is no spilling over.....there is no
enlargement.....as Mike Sullivan said, the
mustard seed parable was FULFILLED......it's not
GROWING anymore......
Now, sure, they will say, people still come into
the city of the New Jerusalem and christianity
spreads and has spread for the last 2,000 years,
BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHIGN THE
BIBLE PROMISED, PROPHESIED, or PREDICTED
according to what I now call: Hyper Preterism.
See, any "impact" on the West, or Civilization
(as Rich brought up) is just a "side benefit."
It's a sort of "extra".....an unexpected
windfall......the Spread of Christianity in the
last 2000 years is, in their view, in no wise
connected with any prophecy in the Bible, for if
it were, then AT THAT POINT, we are beyond A.D.
70 and prophecy is "still being" fulfilled in an
ongoing sense, and these hyper-preterists CANNOT
HAVE THIS. I don't know why.....because they get
really angry when you bring it up."
-
"This
must mean that issues of "sin", "death" and "law", which some
preterists have written off, are "not for today" (along with the
Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel). Here, it
appears, Dennis is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries
have always called hyper-preterism. This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord's Table, or church officers."
(from "the reign of christ" website, page now
removed)
-
(2009) “Um especially -
and I don’t mean to bring this up and I don’t
want to discuss it but the Beyond Creation
Science stuff - um definitely goes further than
- see I would call - in fact I have an article
where I do refer to that and then the
universalizing tendency, I refer to that as
hyper - I call that hyperpreterism. I think a
couple of years ago I started saying this stuff
is going so far out into - I don’t know where
anymore” (August 2009 podcast
mp3)
"I
believe that in this latest exchange, the clear,
clear lines have been drawn between what I know
consider as simply a new reinvention of
Christianity that seeks to operate completely
and entirely outside the scope and circle of
anything that could be considered historic
Christianity." To be specifically
identified as the HyP "Covenant Creation" view
(Sam calls it "BCS Preterism"). http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A5076&page=3#c_45c

Dan Harden

Chris Livingston
-
"As you may have noticed,
in the forum on ZECH 14, I'm dialoging with a guy called RiversofEden who calls himself a Preterist, and he thinks
Christianity was always and only for genetic Jews, but that it also
went extinct at 70 AD. So, I think that an over-significance
can be made of 70 AD. Judgment of Jerusalem. Yes. Fulfillment
of all prophecy concerning the long-awaited beginning of Christ's
Kingdom, the Coming of the Son of Man, and Judean Judgment?
Yes. Extinction of the New Covenant and the Church in its
infancy? No. Obsolescence of the Sermon on the Mount?
No. Cessation of the activity of the person, who is quoted in the
Book of Acts, known as the Holy Spirit? Only to the degree
that believers refuse to separate from iniquity and statist
idolatry." ("The Over-Significance of AD70" -http://planetpreterist.com/news-5441.html#38214)

Richard McPherson
(The
Lord's Supper: Is it for Today?)

John Humphrey Noyes
-
"I first
advanced into actual heresy in the early part of the summer of 1833 while still a student at New Haven Seminary. In the course of my Bible studies my attention was arrested by Christ’s expression in John 21:22: "If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee." This seemed to imply that Jesus expected his disciple John to live until his second coming, and the disciples so construed it. The church on the contrary taught that Christ’s second coming was still far in the future. I had long been in the belief that the Bible was not a book of inexplicable riddles, and I determined to solve this mystery. Accordingly, I read the New Testament ten times with an eye on the question as to the time of Christ’s second coming, and my heart struggling in prayer for full access to the truth." (George Wallingford Noyes, ed.
The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes
(New York, The Macmillan Company, 1923), 69. )

Larry Siegle
 Ed Stevens
-
"These folks would see
the church as a temporary transitional phase of the Kingdom, with
its phase-out in AD 70. These folks would also see baptism,
the Lord’s Supper and other such physical expressions of our ongoing
covenant relationship with God as being no longer valid in the
post-70 Kingdom. This is certainly an extreme “hyper” preterist
position, and very few have taken that route. ”

Mike Sullivan
-
The “literal rapture view” & “no application of eternal
life post AD 70 because "eternal life" was a new covenant
blessing made to the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore can ONLY
apply to them. (Reformed Preterist Yahoo Group) | "Now,
there are REAL "Hyper-Preterists" and they believe there is no
salvation for anyone post AD 70 - and they as well are a
minority (I have only met one in 17 years). They follow the kind of
thinking of Lloyd Dale that "gentiles" are the 10 northern tribes.
So after God "gathered" "all Israel," there is no salvation post
AD 70 for real gentiles." (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)
Lloyd Dale: "For the record here and
anywhere/everywhere else -- While I do think that the first
century "gentiles" coming to salvation included the descendants
of the "ten tribes" it is completely FALSE to assert that I
"believe that there is no salvation post AD 70 for 'real
gentiles'"."
WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID
DEFINING HYPER PRETERISM
Kenneth Gentry
"("Hyper" Preterism)...goes too far by extending valid
observations gathered from temporally confined judgment
passages (texts including such delimitations as ‘soon’ and
‘at hand’) to passages that are not temporally constrained
and that actually prophesy the future advent of Christ." (Tabletalk
magazine, January 1999, p.56)
"Before I begin my
analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my
orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause
to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that
confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This
new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite)
circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the
movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though,
like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and
drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts
that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological
prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it
denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily
resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox
doctrines of the Christian faith."
(An Introductory Disclaimer)
"Unfortunately, a new
gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One
major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future
physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history.
As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the
resurrection of Christ. Before I demonstrate this, I must
briefly summarize the argument for Christ's physical
resurrection, which is the effective cause of our own future
resurrection. " (Christ's
Resurrection and ours)
"First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of
Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A. D. 70. No creed allows any
other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the
universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A.
D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D.
70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its
members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of
the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed
the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?" (Brief
Theologial Analysis of Hyper-Preterism)
Tommy Ice (1999) "EXTREME preterists, or consistent preterists, as they prefer to be known as, hold that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If there is a future second coming, they say, the Bible does not talk about it. Extreme preterists believe that there is no future bodily resurrection, which place them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy." (Has Bible Prophecy Been Fulfilled?)
Keith Mathison (2009) "While
differing among themselves on numerous details, proponents
of this doctrine are united in teaching the most basic
thesis of hyper-preterism, namely that the Second Coming of
Christ and the events associated with it (e.g. the general
resurrection and the final judgment) occurred during the
first century"
David B. Updegraff (1892) "THE effort
to make people believe that the promised parousia [coming] of our Lord
took place at the "destruction of Jerusalem" tends to mislead souls,
blot out the Christian's hope, and destroy the value of Scripture as a
definite testimony to anything." (Old Corn: Or, Sermons and Addresses on the
Spiritual Life, p. 278)
ON HYPER PRETERISM'S
UNIVERSALIST TENDENCIES
Samuel Dawson
"Preterists continue to make 70AD the transition line when
OLD THINGS END, and NEW THINGS BEGIN. Since the OLD THINGS
END (Old Covenant, Old Heavens and Earth, Old Age) pass in
70AD, ALL are then placed in the NEW THINGS (New Covenant,
New Heavens and Earth, New Age). And it is interesting how
these people don't see this as HIGHLY Universalistic,
especially since in the New Heavens and Earth, the ONLY
thing pictured is the New Jerusalem in which the tree of
life resides. So if we are ALL now in the New Heavens and
Earth, (whereby there is no darkness, only light), how is it
there is not seperation from those who are not of God?
Preterism results in ALL being found WORTHY to obtain the
"age to come". They teach ALL are in the New Heavens and
Earth where by "only righteousness dwells." 2 Pet 3:13."
GENERAL COMMENTS
Jay
Adams (2003) "Frost goes on to write, "If the Second Coming really did occur in
A.D.70, does this damage the integrity of the church, he history and her
claim to know the truth?" The (Orthodox Preterist) answer?
Absolutely. The vast majority of biblical exegetes have
clearly taught the doctrines that (Unorthodox Preterists) reject.
If UPs are correct, it would mean that the Bible-believing church would
have been deluded or deceived for most of its history, and Christians
would have truly entertained a "misplaced hope." (Preterism: Orthodox or
Unorthodox, pp. 2,3)
"Because
UPs are right in many of their interpretations, and because in these
they have good exegesis on their side, they have become cocky about the
interpretation of other passages in which they show shoddy and forced
exegesis to support untenable teachings." (Preterism: Orthodox or
Unorthodox, p. 4)
Scott Hahn
"I was originally attracted by Max King and J. S. Russell, but subsequently rejected their view that 70 AD exhaustively fulfills NT prophecy. Personally, I have come to conclude that the main error of "hyper-preterism" is based on the common failure to recognize the theological significance of the biblical (and ancient Jewish) view of Israel's temple as a "microcosm" (i.e., the cosmos in miniature), which implies that the cosmos itself was seen as a "macro-temple" (see Ps 104, Job 38). Accordingly, the divinely decreed destruction of the Jerusalem (microcosmic) temple was itself a typological event, one that foreshadows the future destruction of the cosmos (i.e., as macro-temple). The destruction of the Jerusalem temple is thus a true -- but partial -- fulfillment, which implies a partial non-fulfillment, thus pointing to a still greater fulfillment in the future, when the cosmos undergoes the same divinely decreed destruction as the Jerusalem temple.
An integral interpretation of NT prophetic texts is rooted in the scriptural view of creation, set forth in terms of temple typology (see Hebrews 9:1-12). What happens to the temple must eventually happen to the cosmos; the resurrected body of Christ is the New Temple, which will be fully manifested in glory only when the old cosmos undergoes the same transformative judgement
of God, thus bringing forth a New Creation -- which the Apocalypse rightly
describes as the Divine Temple (Rev. 11:18ff) of the New Jerusalem (Rev.
21:22)." (comments, ca-anathema, 2003)
Tim LaHaye "those who teach Christ came physically in A.D. 70 are borderline heretics"
(End Times Controversy, p. 10)
Robert Mounce
"The
major problem with the preterist position is that the decisive victory
portrayed in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse was never achieved.
It is difficult to believe that John envisioned anything less than the
complete overthrow of Satan, the final destruction of evil, and the
eternal reign of God. If this is not to be, then either the Seer was
essentially wrong in the major thrust of his message or his work was so
hopelessly ambiguous that its first recipients were all led astray"
(The Book of Revelation, 1977, 27)
Gary North "I recommend the immediate public recantation and personal repentance of Russell's theology (Full Preterism). Barring this, I recommend the heretic's excommunication by his church's judicial body. The elders should allow the accused member to identify the heresy for which he is then excommunicated."
(David Chilton, R.I.P.)
"I would suggest that we not encourage (David Chilton's) heresy by interacting with him on this matter on this or any other forum. It is now a matter of Church discipline, assuming that he is under any." (North on Chilton)
"We can and should pray for the restoration of his mind, but to debate with him publicly will almost certainly drive him deeper into this heresy. He will feel compelled to defend himself in public. Let him go in peace. It is not our God-given task to confront him at this point. That is for his local church to do." (North on Chilton)
"Church officers who learn of any member's commitment to the doctrine of "full preterism" have an obligation to help this member clarify his or her thinking, and either become fully consistent with the full-preterist position or else fully abandon it. The member should be brought before the church's session or other disciplinary body and asked the following six questions in writing:"
"the member must also be asked to sign an affirmation of Chapter XXXIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith and answer 90 of the Larger Catechism. This signed statement constitutes a formal rejection of the "full preterist" position. The member must be told in advance that this signed statement can be shown to others at the discretion of the session. If the member refuses to sign such a statement under these conditions, the elders should continue the disciplinary process."
"There are only three lawful ways out of a local congregation: by death, by letter of transfer, and by excommunication. Presbyterian laymen who have been brought before the church's session because they are suspected of holding heretical preterism, and who persist in their commitment to heretical preterism by refusing to sign a statement that is consistent with the Westminster standards, must be removed from membership in the local congregation by excommunication." ("Full Preterism" : Manichean or Perfectionist-Pelagian?)
Joe Price
(1989)
"It is not a harmless, private conviction which can be held
without hurting oneself and others, but a pernicious theory of error
which engulfs the soul of men in destructive heresy!" (Joe Price, "The
Second Coming of Christ: Did it Already Occur'! (3)," Guardian of Truth.
November 2, 1989, p. 650).
Jim West "We must not let them get away with calling themselves "preterists"
or "consistent preterists," or believers in "fulfilled eschatology." The word "preterist"
is a good word. The disciples of Hymenæus are not preterists; their "dispensable
eschatology" makes them heretics. " (The Allurement of Hymenæan Preterism: The
Rise of Dispensable Eschatology)
Douglas Wilson
"When some people find a hammer, everything starts to look
like a nail. In the world of hyper-preterism, we find that everything is devoted
to tying everything else into A.D. 70 somehow." (WSTTB, p.255 )
LATEST ADDITIONS
-
"Now, sure, they
will say, people still come into the city of the New
Jerusalem and christianity spreads and has spread for
the last 2,000 years, BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
ANYTHING THE BIBLE PROMISED, PROPHESIED, or PREDICTED
according to what I now call: Hyper Preterism."
-
Hyper Preterism (AKA
–
Pantelism, Preterist Universalism,
Preterist Universal Annihilationism) – The
view that all things were accomplished in relation to 70AD
where all or most statements of “salvation” or “eternity”
relate to the quality of life for the believer, or escape
from the physical/temporal judgment of 70AD. Some of
the variants of this view claim that after 70AD either all
people are free from sin, including evildoers, thus sending
everyone to heaven, or that there is no afterlife spoken of
in the Bible, thereby causing all Biblical references to
“eternity” or “salvation” to be nothing more than temporal
references to life while on this planet, and future
generations of living people and their quality of life. In
this view, either all people go to heaven or all people go
to a non-existent state at death."
http://preteristalliance.org/preterism/hyper-preterism/
Proponents of this view teach a
variety of variations of Full or Partial Preterism
which the majority of Preterists reject or consider
abberant. Some of the views espoused within this
framework include the following:
1. That all things were
accomplished in relation to AD70 and that the Bible
contains no actual modern day application, other
than general insights or historical reflection.
2. That all or most statements of “salvation” or
“eternity” in the Bible relate to the quality of
life for the believer, or escape from the
physical/temporal judgment of AD70, and do not deal
with the afterlife in any way.
3. That after AD70 people are universally free from
sin, including evildoers, thus sending everyone to
heaven."
4. That there is no afterlife spoken of in the
Bible, thereby causing all Biblical references to
“eternity” or “salvation” to be nothing more than
temporal references to life while on this planet,
and future generations of living people and their
quality of life (called “generational salvation”).
5. That all consciousness ceases at physical death
for all people, whether they are in Christ, or not.
6. There is no continuation of “charismatic gifts”
of any kind after AD70, nor is there any indewlling
of the Holy Spirit.
7. That the Bible is primarily a teaching tool
only, good during the individual life of a
believer, and for future generations of living
people, and may help society as a whole in practical
and tangible ways to mature and advance throughout
history.
Typical proponents of these views
are universalists, universal annihilationists
(generational salvation proponents), pantelists, and
universal cessationalists (the belief that all
Spirital gifts and dwelling of the Holy Spirit has
ceased). Many Hyper Preterists also consider
themselves to be liberal skeptics or scholars,
proponents of higher criticism, or even open
theists, modalists, new age mystics, or unitarians.
While many proponents of this view are quite similar
in their beliefs to atheists, they still maintain a
general belief in God and in the historical figure
of Jesus Christ.
-
Larry Siegle: "I believe that Preterism is
the essence of what the revealed nature of God's "eternal purpose" was
meant to convey and that the local expressions of Preterism (churches)
will represent that essence in every aspect. While such a statement may
sound a bit "cultish" the reality is that there is only one "truth" and
that conflicting theological views may continue to remain within the
boundaries of established "orthodoxy" none will represent the fullness
and completeness of God's redemptive plan as does Preterism."
(Thank, you Larry Siegle. It is
a huge relief - and step in the right direction - to admit that there
are legitimate grounds for others to believe that HyP sounds cultish.
Especially in light of later rhetoric:
-
"Futurism is not okay. Churches that teach and practice doctrine
that affirms futurism are not okay. Why? Because what they
believe, teach and practice leads down a dark pathway of
constant waiting and disappointment. It renders these churches
powerless to be the expression of Christianity that God
intended. It is a lie and one that rejects the Bible and
therefore false. Something false to the core ought to be
uprooted and cast into the fire." // "I will settle for nothing
less than total victory"
-
"It is only a matter of time before believers who are convinced
of the truth (of "AD70
Dispensationalism" TD)
will realize
that an Internet-based "movement" is not sufficient to have a
balanced theology apart from the tangible practical outgrowth in
the form of a church. Nobody wants to start another
denomination. However, it is impossible to accomplish certain
tasks such as ordination, education, and practical ministry
without an organizational framework. Within the next decade we
will begin to see more people moving in this direction. History
teaches that a "movement" evolves into something else
eventually." (I
encourage Larry and other HyPs to abandon the "denomination"
idea, for everybody's good. The "Resurrection
Past" doctrine is not merely a "conflicting theological view" of
established Christianity.. but, rather, it is a complete
overthrow thereof. The two cannot occupy the same space,
obviously, and there will never be close fellowship between the
Christian Church and such a theological enemy. TD)
(http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/topics/shooting-the-breeze-in-sams?commentId=2362512:Comment:19258&xg_source=activity)
-
Kudos to Full Preterist Sam
Frost For Being One of Very Few to Offer a Definition
"I believe that in this latest exchange, the
clear, clear lines have been drawn between what I know consider as
simply a new reinvention of Christianity that seeks to operate
completely and entirely outside the scope and circle of anything
that could be considered historic Christianity." To be
specifically identified as the HyP "Covenant Creation" view
(Sam calls it "BCS Preterism").
http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A5076&page=3#c_45c
-
Jason Bradfield,
Keith Mathison (2009)
"If the debate here is whether or not
John Noyes was a hyper-preterist, then obviously our first
and most important task is to define what is meant by hyper-preterist.
We certainly can’t answer our question if we don’t know what
we are looking for. So what is hyper-preterism
according to Mathison? Mathison tells us: 'While differing among
themselves on numerous details, proponents of this doctrine
are united in teaching the most basic thesis of hyper-preterism,
namely that the Second Coming of Christ and the events
associated with it (e.g. the general resurrection and the
final judgment) occurred during the first century'
The
next obvious step is to then examine the writings of Noyes
and find out if he taught the above, namely, that the Second
Coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final
judgment occurred during the first century. With that clear
definition before us, let us now examine quotes that
Mathison provided and ask if it fits that definition" (The
Oneida Community and Hyper Preterism )
-
Larry Siegle - New Wine, Old Wineskins
(2009) "I do believe that
some statement must be made to provide a sense of
balance to the recent departure from (full)
Preterism of some, back from whence they came. These
actions are neither new, nor are they surprising as
often is the case when the strongholds of “tradition”
are neither broken, nor forsaken. . The
greatest error of Preterism is in our reluctance to
“kill the beast” of allegiance in the hearts and minds
of the people to their vain “traditions” and obsessions
with conformity to the doctrines and practices of those
who created the corpses of denominations that are dying
all around us today... When I heard of the recent
departure of some within the community my honest
reaction was a deep sense of sadness in the very depth
of my being." (Don't forget that a
good percentage of former full preterists did not "go
back" at all, but went forward by synthesizing a preterist
approach to both historical futurism and
idealism. Whether you think it is
consistent with scripture or not, it is still a step FORWARD
in the theological discussion to leave full preterism for a
hybrid not previously held.)
-
William Hill:
Jason Bradfield and John Humphrey Noyes
"Perhaps the most infamous group of pre-1970 hyperpreterists
was a group in upstate New York in the late 1800s. This group was called the
"Oneida Community" (search wikipedia.org). This group formed a commune &
practiced their hyperpreterism to the extent of no longer having individual
marriages but instead everyone having sexual relations with everyone else --
they thought this would be a "logical" conclusion if the resurrection is already
passed & people are no longer given in marriage. (Mt 22:30)"
-
Kim Riddlebarger
"full preterists teach that the resurrection—which, they say, is not bodily
but spiritual—has already occurred. To teach, as full preterists do, that
Christ has already returned and that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70 at
the time of the destruction of Jerusalem is heresy, according to the apostle
Paul.” (A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding The End Times, 239)
-
"Would any Full
Preterist deny that this is hyper-preterism?
I don't think the old covenant
ceased at the cross of Christ. It was done at the destruction of
Jerusalem. After the cross, its began to fade away as we've seen in
the book of Hebrews. The new covenant began on the Day of Pentecost
which the saints were filled with the holy spirit and Christ was
their King. Now, this may be an interesting part, the judgment began
at 66 AD when the saints were "raised" and "received" the thrones of
kingdom with the parousia of Christ at that time, not 70 AD yet. See
Rev. 11:15-19; Matt. 19:28; and Luke 22:30.
The old covenant and the new covenant
were overlaping during 30-70 AD. It seems that BOTH WERE
ENDED at 70 AD. When all things (the judgment, the
enemies, the resurrection, the kingdom, the death, the covenants,
and the Law) that were subjected to him, he delivered up to his God
(Yahweh) the Father which He may be all in all." (Cite)
"Theses of
the Second Reformation."
John Humphrey Noyes From
From Aug. 20, 1837
"26. We believe, that Christ plainly and repeatedly
promised to his disciples, that he would come to them a second time and
complete their salvation within the life-time of some of his
immediate followers.
27. We believe, that the primitive church, living in the transition period,
from the first to the second coming of Christ, were more or less partakers
of the resurrection, holiness, liberty, and glory of Christ according to
their faith.
28. We believe, that at the destruction of Jerusalem,
the end of the Jewish dispensation, Christ came to believers the second
time, according to his promise.
29. We believe, that at the period of the second coming of Christ,
christianity, or the kingdom of heaven, properly began."
HYPER PRETERISM - DEFINED BY FORMER
HYPER PRETERISTS
Todd Dennis (2007)
Long Definition:
FULL PRETERISM/"SYSTEMATIC HYPER
PRETERISM" (HyP) = A) That view which consistently
sees the consummation of the ages, and the utter
terminal date for all Bible prophecy, in AD70.
Non-Preterists can hold to similar HyP aspects of AD70
fulfillment, but only HyPs consistently appeal to AD70.
Those with dangerous doctrines based upon total AD70
fulfillment - such as
Noyes - are likewise grouped in this
classification. B) According to known literature,
this class did not emerge until the middle of the 19th
century, though it could be said to have been
anticipated in the writings of certain Modern Preterists,
and in the writings of the
Preterist Universalists. The
earliest known undeniably Full Preterist/Systematic
Hyper Preterist book was written in 1845, though the
author later abandoned the view. C) Believes that all
Bible prophecy was totally fulfilled by AD70,
including the Parousia, General Judgment and General
Resurrection -- which places this view outside of
general church "orthodoxy." (Narrowest Range in
Time and Doctrine - Earliest Known Representatives,
Townley (1845)
and
Desprez (1854), both left the view)
Short Definition:
Hyper Preterism (HyP) - (Absolute Fulfillment of
all Bible prophecy - Full Preterism and "Resurrection
Past" Teachings; Full Preterism is systematized Hyper
Preterism - All Systematic Full Preterist views are
Hyper Preterism, but not all Hyper Preterism is Full
Preterism.)

Roderick Edwards (2009)
Historic Preterism
(sometimes erroneously called "partial-preterism",
really just, historic Christianity pre-dispensationalism)
Believes AD70 destruction of Temple & Jerusalem is
related in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24/Mk 13/Lk 21) but
still advocates a future return of Christ, a future
bodily resurrection of the believers, a future judgment
of the wicked & righteous, a future culmination of the
world.
Hyperpreterism
(sometimes called Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology,
Fulfilled Eschatology, Realized Eschatology, &
erronenously just "Preterism") Believes Jesus came back
once & for all in the 1st-century, that the resurrection
of the believers happened in the 1st-century & was not
physical, that the judgment of the wicked & righteous
happened in the 1st-century, that there will be no end
to sin & no culmination of the world. There are
variations of these beliefs as hyperpreterism is made up
of a group of individualistic private interpreters.
Futurism
(this is an artificial label most implemented by
hyperpreterists to try to level the playing field. In
actuality, hyperpreterists must claim all Christianity
are futurists. Often you will see dispensationalists
depicted as futurists when as I stated ALL Christians
are at least somewhat futurists) Futurism is NOT the
opposite of Preterism since these labels are incorrectly
used. It is more accurate to label it Christians versus
Heretics since whether you look at pre-Roman
Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox,
Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, or Modern
Evangelical, ALL of these historic expressions of
Christianity have AGREED on the exact things hyperpreterism wants us to deny."
SAM FROST FINDING
AGREEMENT AMONG FULL PRETERIST GROUPS THAT REFUTES THE
TRADITIONAL TEACHING THAT "ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED
IN AD70" // CREATES NATURAL
DEFINITION FOR "HYPER-PRETERISM" - "ALL BIBLE
PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70"
-
Sam Frost:
BCS, Ch. 21 Pt. 1 (11/5/10) "The “buzz” going around
on the other Preterist websites is that they, too, see
“ongoing fulfillment.” If this is the case, then Full
Preterism needs to drop the moniker that “we believe ALL
prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.” They weren’t. The
prophecies concerning the “age to come” are being
fulfilled today.
-
On Prophecy - "I suppose the difference is that I
believe that this goal is prophesied. Once
it is accomplished perhaps then God will end
history. I don’t know when He will, just that he
has revealed in the Bible that he will (Eccl
3.11; Is 41.4, et al)."
-
On Full Preterist Covenant Creationism - "One has to
buy into the entire system it seems in order for the
"parts" to work. But when one starts questioning the
parts, that's where it breaks down. "
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
Date: 29 Nov 2009
Time: 15:24:47
Your Comments:
If, as HP teaches,that all was compleated concerning the Old
Covenant,(and I believe from my own studies,that this could
be so)than I would like to hear from them about this New
Heaven and Earth,and in what way this effects us today.
Date: 26 Aug 2010
Time: 08:27:24
Your Comments:
After reading all this stuff -I never heard of this
preterism business- I have this to say: If one is looking
for "orthodox" or "historic" Christianity he needs to
abandon his commentaries and "confessions", and then
undertake a rigorous study (more likely a lifetime study} of
everything pertaining to he Bible. This includes history,
geography, archeology and especially the study of the
meanings of almost every word in the Bible. There is not a
single word in the Bible that can be accurately equated with
our English words in "main street USA". I challenge anyone
to do any exhaustive study on the words in the Bible that
are translated "earth", "land", "world" and that amazing
word "gentiles". No dictionary will give an accurate and
usable definition for the understanding of the Bible'
purpose and end. Let us stop this "heritic" and
"excommunication" garbage business. After all, it seems to
me that these discussions are about the tips of the branches
of the tree. We need to go to the "root" before proceeding
to the "fruit". The "fruit", in my estimation, deals with
the end to which our remarkable Bible proceeds. We ain't
near there yet! Thanks for listening. LOU
|