A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

We must understand that preterism is not fundamentally based on a mistaken view of prophecy, but this mistaken view of prophecy is based on an un-Biblical hermeneutic. A Biblical view of prophecy and its fulfillment strikes a death blow to the full (hyper) preterist doctrine.

It's very simple and I believe completely unanswerable by the preterist. Here it is. We all know that OT prophecies of Jesus Christ were fulfilled literally and precisely. I could give many, but most of you know them, I'm sure. So just a few of the most obvious ones:

Birth at Bethlehem of Ephratah (Micah 5:2 & Matt. 2:5-6)
Birth of a virgin (Is. 7:14 & Matt. 1:23)
Lived in Egypt (Hos. 11:1 & Matt. 2:14-15)
Tribe of Judah, house of David, etc. etc.

You can easily find many more with a quick Internet search, or in a good book on Biblical prophecy. The best and one of the only books on the interpretation of prophecy is The Interpretation of Prophecy, by Paul Lee Tan. Tan calls prophecy "prewritten history." And history is literal facts, not allegory.

Now since all OT prophecies of the first coming of Jesus Christ were fulfilled literally for all to see, it naturally follows that prophecies of Christ will be fulfilled literally. Any other view--any preterist view that denies a literal, physical 2nd coming of Jesus Christ is simply wrong and un-Biblical.

Oh, and by the way. Until the end of the 2nd century all church fathers, all Christian writings interpreted literally. According to Tan, Pantaenus in about 180 AD was the first to suggest allegorical interpretation (p. 48), and of course Origen was the one who popularized it in the 3rd century. Those early Christians all simply believed the literal sense of the Bible.

 

Any full preterists have the guts to answer this?

 

That's no answer. Since you are so sure of this, give an answer. Since all the OT prophecies of the first coming of Jesus Christ were literally fulfilled without fail, why then will the prophecies of the 2nd coming of Christ not be literally fulfulled instead of "spiritually" fulfilled?

We have a clear, obvious and literal hermeneutic taught in the interpretation of OT quotes in the NT. Christians ignore this and "spiritualize" at their spiritual peril.

Yes they did, absolutely. All the early Christian writers who touched on the subject without fail wrote of a literal 2nd coming of Christ. I have shown on another thread how the Didache did so (never answered by a preterist). There was no allegorical, "spiritual" interpretation of the Word of God until the end of the 2nd century, and it did not become popular until Origen in mid-3rd century.

 

Let me get this straight. You believe that OT prophecy fulfilled literally in the NT birth, life and death of Christ have nothing to do with NT prophecy? What is your epistemology on this?

And the comings of God in the OT were not physical manifestations? Agreed. So does that to you mean that the birth of Christ in the NT was not a physical birth? Surely you'll admit that the first coming of Christ was physical. And the resurrection of Christ was physical, right? So once again, why would not the 2nd coming of Christ be physical?

This issue of the 2nd Coming of Christ is hardly an exact parallel to God, who is a Spirit, manifesting Himself in spirit form to OT saints. Let's even go further. Do you agree that there are preincarnate appearances of Christ? And that those were physical? If so, then why will not the 2nd coming be physical?

Christ came physically in literal fulfillment of OT prophecy, therefore He will come physically in literal fulfillment of NT prophecy. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that Christ is God become flesh.

So, we have preincarnate appearances of Christ in the flesh, we have the literal, physical birth and literal, physical resurrection of Christ. This clearly means that in any Biblical hermeneutic Christ will come the 2nd time in the flesh.

Trying to derail the thread, eh?

 

This is actually a problem to you? Incredibly simple. That's like saying, "Is a man on a horse on a truck on the truck or on the horse?" Just plain silly!

 

You seem to have missed the point of this thread. It is not about dispensationalism or even premil. It is about a literal 2nd coming of Christ, something that amils and postmils agree with premils on. Stick to the thread please.

 

I really don't have time to deal with this whole complicated issue this morning. I'm working on the translation of Rom. 15, and have to leave for the church shortly to work with Uncle Miya on Phil.

But I will say this, that yes, parousia definitely means physical coming. It is used undisputably for that in:

1 Cor. 16:17--I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

2 Cor. 17:6&7--Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus;
And not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more.

2 Cor. 10:10--For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

Phil 1:26--That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.

Phil 2:12--Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

So since in every single case when parousia is used of humans in the NT who were not Christ, then obviously, yes, parousia means a literal coming when applied to Christ also.