We were asked to look at another critique of preterism, this one by a site that’s a little more, shall we say, unusual. Continue reading “James Holding: A Cranky Christian’s Take on Preterism (2004)”
He says that He will judge the world when He returns like this: ‘And I saw the dead… stand before God; and the books were opened ….. This didn!t happen in 70 A.D?
For Mr. M’s argument to be valid “hyperpretersts” would have to be considered Christians, for the presence liars in the NC (which we say is the NH and NE) is his argument against us.
The primary area I wish to address is the “eschaton period” and the biblical framework of the “ages” and “covenants”. The point in question is whether or not the “Mosaic age” ended at the cross or in A.D. 70.
preterists are compelled to believe in an AD 70 fulfillment of the resurrection. Appeals to church history, number of adherents, derogatory name-calling, and false accusations regarding ones motives are not going to convince the serious Bible student.
Does the church’s “struggle against sin” imply the church’s non-triumph over sin on Earth? If so, then No, the church militant will not “struggle against sin in history forever.”
No matter how Futurists try to explain it away, the Apostles taught (and the early Church believed) that the return of Christ was imminent, and would happen in their generation.
Whereas Reformed scholars and laymen who become Preterists adopt this position largely (but not exclusively) because of the New Testament’s emphasis on the numerous and powerful imminency passages, our author chooses to discuss only one imminency verse
While being careful to distance Ken Gentry from the more consistent “full preterists,” Sandlin seems to defend the “partial preterist” view as thoroughly orthodox.
Preterists did not come to the view lightly or easily. It is a view that seeks to take seriously the clear time statements of Scripture and to handle them honestly and accurately.