A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[John of Japan]

John of Japan challenges:
“Fine. Prove it. I'll seek truth, and then believe your truth when you present it. Show from the Greek, or quote a scholar or lay out the Scriptures--anything but just bald statements with no proof, which is what you are doing now.”

Child’s play--so I found one, but if I produced a million it wouldn’t matter to John because if you disagree with his position then he thinks you don’t understand Greek. We don’t have to be Greek scholars to grasp enough Greek to see the error in some of John’s assertions. In the end it’s not really about Greek at all, but a particular slant on theology (and against preterism).

Here is the link so you can read the whole post by Dr. Kelly Birks.

http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235
Actually this is the first time I’ve heard of Dr. Birks so I don’t know if I agree with eveything he says or not (like all Baptists or futurists not all preterists agree with one another completely) but I find his comments on aer vs ouranos spot on.


So John let me thank you for helping me to find yet another Preterist resource—I plan on reading more of his work and the material found on his site.

And with no further ado here is a copy and paste of just part of the material on this page: (I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest John will disagree with Dr. Birks)

.... (the BB software did not allow me to quote all of Birks--too long!--JoJ)

If you want to read the whole article Dr. Birks does an excellent job of destroying the rapture and making other preterists points, but that is beyond the point here—I’m showing the bias of John’s greek bias in his war on preterism. But for those of you interested here again is the link.

http://worldwithoutend.info/wwewp/?p=235

Hey, I didn't mean cut and paste an entire article by someone. Of course it was "child's play" for you! But it's not debate! Debate is when you, yourself comprehend and make the points. You might quote scholars or other sources, but the points should be your own. I can deal with all of your post from Birks, but then I wouldn't be debating you, I'd be debating Birks. That's not really fair tactics. You can just sit back and grin without doing any work of your own.

If I can find the time I may respond to Birks. But in the meantime I'll just make a couple of comments.

(1) I note that Birks used BAGD (he calls it Arndt and Gingrich, which I haven't heard in decades) to reference harpazo, which is good. However, later he uses Thayer's, extremely out of date. I may get around to harpazo sometime, but I don't consider the discussion to be connected with the OP. I only confronted you on aer because I thought you were way off base (still do). But then he uses Strong's on aer. I do not accept Strong's or Thayer's as authoritative in any way, shape or form.

(2) There is no "realm of the spirit" in the Scriptures. All spiritual beings exist in this space time continuum. They dwell in people (demons), take human form (angels), etc. It would take too long to discuss this point here, though. Maybe we can do a thread on that sometime.

(3) I suggested you quote a scholar. At this point Birks does not look scholarly to me, judging on his sources. He has a doctorate of some kind (doesn't say where from on his website). I'd like to know more about him before recognizing him as scholarly.

(4) Birks is apparently a Charismatic (see his website at: http://www.drkellynelsonbirks.com/about.php), though he may have rejected that movement later (he doesn't say). I urge great caution to all BB Baptists in accessing his information. (This is regardless of his stance on prophecy.) Believe me, my ministry has been deeply hurt three times by Charismatics. They can be extremely dangerous spiritually.

 

[thomas15]

Logos1, you make much about the definition of AER but you really don't go beyond the definition and do any exegesis on the matter. I'm at work and don't have anything to reference but in the book The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question Ice and (preterist Ken) Gentry debate the question of the tribulation timing. Gentry talks about Matthew 24 and how the "dispies" get it all wrong. He goes to great length to attempt to show that the NASB gets verse 30 wrong (Mat 24:30) by saying that Jesus will apprear in the "clouds of the sky". Gentry perfers the KJV which leaves out the work "sky" and he (Gentry) tries to make a case that it is the "sign" of Jesus appearing (in heaven) that the Apostles should see at his (Jesus) coming.

Even for this old fool, I see two problems, one is that using the word "sky" as in the NASB is apparently an acceptable use of the word and the other is that reading further in the passage (which Gentry doesn't do) the whole matter clears itself up and it becomes clear that Jesus ment to communicate that the actual Son of Man would actually appear in actual clouds in the actual sky to be viewed by all persons on the planet earth. Gentry, in my opinion tries to make his case based on the premise that the reader will not actually pick up the Bible and read the cited scripture in context.

For those who simply "take his (Gentry's) word" for it without any study of the actual Scripture text, he makes a convincing case. For those who are intrepid enough to read Genty's cited footnotes and his scripture references, his job of convincing his readers to his way of thinking becomes much harder.

 

[John of Japan]

Logos1, you make much about the definition of AER but you really don't go beyond the definition and do any exegesis on the matter. I'm at work and don't have anything to reference but in the book The Great Tribulation--Past or Future?: Two Evangelicals Debate the Question Ice and (preterist Ken) Gentry debate the question of the tribulation timing. Gentry talks about Matthew 24 and how the "dispies" get it all wrong. He goes to great length to attempt to show that the NASB gets verse 30 wrong (Mat 24:30) by saying that Jesus will apprear in the "clouds of the sky". Gentry perfers the KJV which leaves out the work "sky" and he (Gentry) tries to make a case that it is the "sign" of Jesus appearing (in heaven) that the Apostles should see at his (Jesus) coming.

Even for this old fool, I see two problems, one is that using the word "sky" as in the NASB is apparently an acceptable use of the word and the other is that reading further in the passage (which Gentry doesn't do) the whole matter clears itself up and it becomes clear that Jesus ment to communicate that the actual Son of Man would actually appear in actual clouds in the actual sky to be viewed by all persons on the planet earth. Gentry, in my opinion tries to make his case based on the premise that the reader will not actually pick up the Bible and read the cited scripture in context.

For those who simply "take his (Gentry's) word" for it without any study of the actual Scripture text, he makes a convincing case. For those who are intrepid enough to read Genty's cited footnotes and his scripture references, his job of convincing his readers to his way of thinking becomes much harder.

Ken Gentry is apparently the culprit who started the current wave of full preterist error.

I have the Theological Journal Version 2 CD (kind of old, but great). It has 4 major theological journals: Bib Sac from '55-'97; Grace Theo. Jour. from '60 to '91; JETS from '78 to '97; Westminster from '80 to '97. If you do a search for "preterism" you get only 4 hits for all those years of four leading theological journals. Two are for one article on the Middle Ages, another is a book review of a Millard Erickson book for '95, and the other is a review of Gentry's '89 book based on his doctoral thesis, The Beast of Revelation. (Admittedly there are a good deal more hits for preterist, but almost all are for just a couple of articles.)

This is why I've said a couple of times on the BB that full preterism is a very small minority position among evangelicals. The argument that it is popular on the Internet is very weak. I'll believe there is a true revival of full preterism when the scholars start discussing it at the ETS meetings.

 

[J.D.]

Ken Gentry is apparently the culprit who started the current wave of full preterist error.

Ummm...Gentry is not a FP, and has even written against it.

 

[asterisktom]

Ken Gentry is apparently the culprit who started the current wave of full preterist error.

This shows that you aren't very clear on the whole issue of Preterism. Gentry, although he has tons of helpful material for Preterists of all stripes, has written forcefully (but unconvincingly IMO) against my position of full Preterism. He wrote "A Brief Theological Analysis Of Hyper-Preterism" which was answered by FPs like Walt Hibbard and others.

You also have J. Stuart Russell's "The Parousia" which was republished by Baker in 1983. Later editions had the famous Forward by R.C. Sproul.

So the modern interest in Preterism goes well before Gentry.

 

[thomas15]

Ken Gentry is apparently the culprit who started the current wave of full preterist error.

Gentry is one of the major players in the modern preterism movement even if he is not a full preterist himself, so you are correct John in your observation.

While those who are on the preterist bandwagon here like to thump their chest while defining full/partial preterists and their particular place in the spectrum of things, the reality is that there isn't a whole lot of difference between them (full/partial), just minor disagreement on how much second coming prophecy was not completed in the first century AD. To my way of thinking though, with to respect to the Bible, degrees of error are still error. Not to imply that I have it all correct, far from it. This is why I take a literal approach to these matters.

The point I was trying to make is that Gentry, regardless of his degree of preterist involvement, employs the same tactic that many of them do and that is they take a half verse from the Bible or a quote from a famous theologian out of context to make their case for them. The careful reader of Gentry and Sproul, those who actually take the time to carefully read what they say and look at their references find that their research into the subject at hand is not as comprehensive as they would like us to believe.

 

[Grasshopper]

This shows that you aren't very clear on the whole issue of Preterism. Gentry, although he has tons of helpful material for Preterists of all stripes, has written forcefully (but unconvincingly IMO) against my position of full Preterism. He wrote "A Brief Theological Analysis Of Hyper-Preterism" which was answered by FPs like Walt Hibbard and others.

You also have J. Stuart Russell's "The Parousia" which was republished by Baker in 1983. Later editions had the famous Forward by R.C. Sproul.

So the modern interest in Preterism goes well before Gentry.

This was the reason I bailed out. You have people on here you don't even understand preterism or even the difference between full and partial.

 

[asterisktom]

This was the reason I bailed out. You have people on here you don't even understand preterism or even the difference between full and partial.

You may have chosen the wiser course, Grasshopper.

 

[thomas15]

This was the reason I bailed out. You have people on here you don't even understand preterism or even the difference between full and partial.

One of the hallmarks of Covenant theologians in general and Preterists in particular is their consistant lack of understanding of dispensationalists and their beliefs. A typical book critical of dispy teaching starts like this, "I was raised in a dispensational church and for 40 years accepted their teachings without question. But over the years I couldn't escape the nagging feeling that the spectacular and very deep theological discussion in Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth didn't seem correct, I didn't see the Rapture in Matt ch 24 and all so now I'm a preterist and my IQ has jumped 40 points".

Just kidding about the IQ statement but my point is there. I have not read one book critical of dispensationalism that didn't somehow misrepresent mainstream dispensational thought and or try to paint dispies as non-academic. No doubt there is a critical work out there that is fair to dispensational thinking but you have to search long and hard.

 

[JesusFan]

One of the hallmarks of Covenant theologians in general and Preterists in particular is their consistant lack of understanding of dispensationalists and their beliefs. A typical book critical of dispy teaching starts like this, "I was raised in a dispensational church and for 40 years accepted their teachings without question. But over the years I couldn't escape the nagging feeling that the spectacular and very deep theological discussion in Hal Lindsey's book The Late Great Planet Earth didn't seem correct, I didn't see the Rapture in Matt ch 24 and all so now I'm a preterist and my IQ has jumped 40 points".

Just kidding about the IQ statement but my point is there. I have not read one book critical of dispensationalism that didn't somehow misrepresent mainstream dispensational thought and or try to paint dispies as non-academic. No doubt there is a critical work out there that is fair to dispensational thinking but you have to search long and hard.

Interesting that the majority of the early Church/Church fathers seemed to teach/hold to a Dispy pre mill viewpoint, as they were holding to the traditions/teachings handed down from the Apostles themselves..

Think would agree with them more so than those espousing the doctrine of full pretierism!

 

[DHK]

Attempts at bullying--that I'm convinced of.

Only in your head is disagreeing with you a personal attack on you. I challenge you to find even one example where I have made a personal attack on you or anyone else.

Check your previous post. Check your post to "inTheLight. Your response was unacceptable. This is what is deemed as a personal attack/insult:

"However to now go back and post an answer to that in this thread seems a lot like kowtowing to DHK’s bullying and as a matter of principle I will have to ask your forgiveness in not rewarding bullying in this thread."

Threats are no way to defend your position, but when logic and scriptural support are lacking you don't seem to hesitate to go there.

I am a moderator. Smarten up, or your attitude will find yourself at the doorstep of the administration. I am not speaking of your theology; I am speaking of general rudeness and attitude on the board.

I know the difference between sincerity and stubbornness in theology.

I saw your post else where putting words in the mouth of preterists so to compare them to J.W.--(again how is it that I find with ease on these boards what you claim you don't know about--is it laziness or denial) what you can't come by honestly you are inventing.

If you deny the comparison then show how it isn't relevant. To me it is relevant. You both set dates. You both have no evidence that Christ came. The comparison is relevant. You both can't back up your claims with evidence. If the fire is too hot get out while you can. This is a debate, and you can't seem to back up your claims except to call other people down by derogatory remarks. That is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to tell them to go look in a book (internet) when you are unable to give an answer. That is a copout.

As for such wild assertions as denying the trinity (again I find these things)--I've not seen one preterist yet here or else where who has suggested such things as you wish to manufacture. Every preterists I've read or heard from glady embrace the trinity--is this a special priviledge of the monitors to put words in the mouth of those they disagree with?

Have you had your reading skills checked recently? I never said you denied the trinity; never even suggested it. I used an example of a cult that did. I plainly said that we don't allow those that deny the trinity to post here. That is one reason why you are still posting. If you had denied the trinity, obviously you would not be posting. Nowhere did I say you denied the trinity. Go back and read my post, and get some understanding.

You can't find any examples of when I've tried to put words in someone's mouth or accused them of being guilty of what I want to see them guilty of.

hmmm, In your above paragraph you just put words into my mouth, words that I never said.

Who monitors the monitorers and lets you get away with these tactics.

If you have a problem there is an alert problem button on the upper right of your screen. Use it.

I'll say up until now I've thought the monitors here were respectful, fair, decent in their dealings with others, and administer the board with good judgment which makes it a pleasure to post here (disagreements are not a bad thing they make life more interesting than it would be if we all agreed all the time). DHK has let his personal bias against preterism prejudice his judgment, objectivity, and even handedness.

I have a bias against those doctrines which I consider heresy. If you had any experience posting in the Other Christian Denominations forum, you would find me the same way. I don't have much patience with those who post against that which falls outside the realm of Orthodox Christianity.

Your attitude is: Christianity has believed these doctrines for well over 2,000 years. They are historic doctrines. They have been well established by the Christian community at large. But now that 2,000 years I (and some others) are going to challenge those beliefs with something new. I am going to declare everyone else wrong and I alone (and a few others) right. Don't you realize that that is how every cult started? And what is really strange is that you can't back up the claims that you make. Instead you tell those who challenge your claims to go to the internet. Your not much for debate are you?

 

[J.D.]

Interesting that the majority of the early Church/Church fathers seemed to teach/hold to a Dispy pre mill viewpoint, as they were holding to the traditions/teachings handed down from the Apostles themselves..

Think would agree with them more so than those espousing the doctrine of full pretierism!

If you can show me one serious bible teacher that taught dispy before 1850 I'll eat my shoe.