A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[Grasshopper]

Now I have time to look at this link. And here is what it has as a definition for parousia:

Now I see where you got the "Strong's definition." That alone brands the writer of this definition as someone who either doesn't know Greek or only knows enough to get him into trouble. If I taught Greek in America instead of Japan I'd tell my students never, ever to use Strong's. :smilewinkgrin: It's way out of date, written well over 100 years ago, before all of the papyri were discovered that we have today to consult.

This is a very poor definition. The word does not mean literally "abiding presence." The mistake this author makes is called by D. A. Carson the "root fallacy" in his excellent book, Exegetical Fallacies. Here is what Carson says: "One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy pre-supposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word" (p. 26).

The normal way to determine a word's meaning is by it's common usage, and I have done that with parousia, proving that every single Biblical usage of people other than Christ involved a literal appearance. Therefore, the parousia of Christ is also a literal presence, a literal and physical 2nd coming.

Since I have had no Greek I will not push this point. however I will note that men much more studied than you and I combined have referred to the parousia of Matthew 24 as a non physical event. Men such as Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot, Clarke, Sproul , Henry and many others who are not full preterist see it as a non physical coming of Christ.

 

[Grasshopper]

You missed my response in post 20. But that is not surprising considering this display of arrogance. Kind of hard to see past it isn't it.

Where have I displayed arrogance? Is firmly believing on ones position and debating it a sign of arrogance? But since you are upset I will address you in the same manner you did me.

1. It's hard to take serious one you puts the definitions with the wrong words.

2. It looks as if you looked at the notes in your Scofield Bible to come up with your defense.

3. Genos would have been a better word for race, not genea.

4. I'm not sure Dispies even hold to the "race" interpretation anymore. Your defense was so entry level I didn't see it worth my time. Especially since I have obtained an IPad, much harder to respond on these forums.

5. What does Scofield say about Rev. 1:3; 22:7; 22:10?

6. Is this arrogant enough for you?

 

[asterisktom]

Where have I displayed arrogance? Is firmly believing on ones position and debating it a sign of arrogance? But since you are upset I will address you in the same manner you did me.

1. It's hard to take serious one you puts the definitions with the wrong words.

2. It looks as if you looked at the notes in your Scofield Bible to come up with your defense.

3. Genos would have been a better word for race, not genea.

4. I'm not sure Dispies even hold to the "race" interpretation anymore. Your defense was so entry level I didn't see it worth my time. Especially since I have obtained an IPad, much harder to respond on these forums.

5. What does Scofield say about Rev. 1:3; 22:7; 22:10?

6. Is this arrogant enough for you?

I get tired of the arrogance accusation too, which has happened to me here on a number of occasions. After spending so many years in a system with so many loose ends it was so refreshing to find something that fits so perfectly. What looks like arrogance on the outside is actually, in my case, and I assume yours, relief.

BTW, I have a number of loose threads to attend to but haven' been feeling well, plus we are getting ready to move still. But in the meantime I have enjoyed the input from others here, esp. yours, Logos, KyRedneck, J.D. et al. And also a few others who, though differing in views, at least do so graciously.

 

[DHK]

Since I have had no Greek I will not push this point. however I will note that men much more studied than you and I combined have referred to the parousia of Matthew 24 as a non physical event. Men such as Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot, Clarke, Sproul , Henry and many others who are not full preterist see it as a non physical coming of Christ.

Everyone that you just quoted is a Calvinist. Some of them to the point of taking their Calvinism to such an extreme that it becomes heretical. Let me give you an example:

Doctor Gill’s “Body of Divinity,” published in 1769, was a great treatise of the rigid supralapsarian type of Calvinism, and long held its place as a theological textbook. This type of Calvinism can with difficulty be distinguished from fatalism and antinomianism. If Gill did not hold, as his opponents charged, that the elect live in a constant state of sanctification (because of the imputed righteousness of Christ), even while they commit much sin, he did hold that because of God’s election Christians must not presume to interfere with his purposes by inviting sinners to the Saviour, for he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and on no others. This is practically to nullify the Great Commission; and, in consequence of this belief, Calvinistic Baptist preachers largely ceased to warn, exhort, and invite sinners; holding that, as God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, when he willed he would effectually call an elect person, and that for anybody else to invite people to believe was useless, if not an impertinent interference with the prerogatives of God. What wonder that a spiritual dry-rot spread among the English churches where such doctrines obtained! Could any other result be reasonably expected as the fruits of such a theology? It must, however, in justice be said that this was a time of general decline in religion among Englishmen, which began with the Restoration, and became marked from the beginning of the Hanoverian period. Many causes combined to bring religion to this low estate. In the desire to avoid Romanism on the one hand and Puritanism on the other, the Established Church had fallen into a colorless, passionless, powerless style of teaching. The clergy were estranged from the House of Hanover, and the whole church system was disorganized. By successive withdrawals of its best men, the Church had been seriously weakened, while the Dissenting bodies had not been correspondingly strengthened. Deism had made great strides among people and clergy, and Christianity was but half believed and less than half practised.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/ch16.htm

Our famed John Gill, Baptist theologian; his theology led to both fatalism and antinomianism claims the reputed Baptist historian, Vedder, in his "Short History of the Baptists." There was no need for the Great Commission. God would save whomever he would save. He didn't need man's help or interference--"an impertinent interference with the prerogatives of God."
I would call that heresy. I have great respect for him as a theologian and do not hesitate to use his books. But I am careful how I use them. The same holds true for some of the other Calvinists that you mentioned, especially from the same time period as Gill.

 

[Logos1]

Sincere question:

If Jesus' second coming has already taken place, how will those who have died, rise up on the resurrection day? When Jesus comes, those that are alive and remain(born again folks) will be changed in a moment and twinkling of an eye, and the dead in Christ will rise first. So, if He has already came, then how can these things happen. I don't understand the full preterist/partial preterist view, and I ask these questions with all sincerity to understand y'alls view on this matter. Please explain this to me!! BTW, read my signature, and proceed with caution........:laugh::laugh::wavey:

They rose at his coming in 70 AD and are now in heaven.

Those who remain will not go to sheol upon death they will go immediately to heaven upon death. In the twinkling of an eye so to speak. They aren't changed on earth, but at the time of their death. Notice the verse (17) says after that

 

[convicted1]

They rose at his coming in 70 AD and are now in heaven.

Those who remain will not go to sheol upon death they will go immediately to heaven upon death. In the twinkling of an eye so to speak. They aren't changed on earth, but at the time of their death. Notice the verse (17) says after that

But what about our physical body? What happens to our physical body after we die? Does it not come out? Does it "rot away" in the grave? Please elaborate!! I honestly want to know your beliefs!! Thanks in advance!!

:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

Willis

 

[Logos1]

Allan when you look in the past mirror of Preterism it reflects your future destiny

We find the apostles were clearly "looking for him to come" in their generation.. but what you fail to remember historically is that they ALSO taught their disciples to look for his coming, and those disciples taught their disciples, ect.. No where do we ever find them stating, He has come. AND, the premil view was the orthodox view of Church, and was uncontested for the first 200 to 250 years of the early church!

I guess those apostles weren't very good teachers of the on the coming of Jesus


Then you need to change your view to that which they actually taught, and is seen historically in the early church. - the Premil view - which includes a literal 1000 year reign from Jerusalem, a literal physical return of Christ, a literal and physical resurrection, a literal and single anti-christ, and to restore again the Kingdom to Israel


Correct, IF they were wrong. And since they were not but taught their disciples to look for His coming and the Premil view, and those disciples taught their disciples the same.. we can know for SURE on that issue, just what the apostles taught.. and this WAS Futurism or the Premil position.


Apparently you are on the wrong side.. look back at church history.


Unfortunately, this does not line up with what they taught their disciples.. again, you listened to views that do not line up with their teachings on THIS subject and can be verified vai early church history.


No. what is sad is that you willingly and proudly stand against not only the testimony of scripture, but the apostles teaching that established the early church view on this subject that was uncontested for over 200 years, and not till 450'ish was that view over turned from orthodoxy.

Greetings Allan,

At first I was going to thank you for illustrating the difference between how preterists build their case on the bible and how futurists build theirs on such things as historical writer’s mistaken beliefs down through the ages and the Creeds, but I think you are totally sincere in your beliefs just like I was when I was a premil dispy and instead feel compelled just to say if you are only seeking truth and not merely seeking to defend a position at all costs then I am your future.

It won’t be an easy journey at times, but if you let the truth of the bible furrow its message into your heart inevitability you will let go of beliefs that aren’t even in the bible and embrace Preterism.

One example, you stated a literal, single antichrist. This is a common belief among futurists that most people assume is presented in the bible who is a future world leader. Most would be surprised to find out the term is never presented as such in the bible. The term antichrist only appears in 1st and 2nd John and is never a world leader, but apostate Christians, non-believers in the resurrection, etc.

If you read the passage around it for context you can clearly see in every example that there is never one single antichrist, but multiple antichrists. Perhaps the truth about the term is not as much fun as the myth and it is difficult for people to let go of an erroneous belief.

And, yes the Apostles did tell people to look for his return and since all the N.T. was written before 70AD they never said he had already returned—they understand exactly what they are doing—they are divinely inspired and the Holy Ghost gave them true understanding. Paul did tell the Thessalonians (1 Thel 4:15) We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming…clearly any honest reading can’t deny he is saying to them the Lord will come in their generation.

Thank God I was lead by the Spirit to full Preterism and subjected my views to the truth. Allan you will find reading the bible both OT and NT come alive for you like never before, the contradictions are untangled, and there is harmony to the Scriptures that you can hold dear to instead of struggling and having to fudge a little to get it to reconcile itself.

And, if you don’t believe me just test it out for yourself and see what happens. Just be prepared to be convicted by the truth and not have peace till you reconcile with it.

 

[Calv1]

Greetings Allan,

At first I was going to thank you for illustrating the difference between how preterists build their case on the bible and how futurists build theirs on such things as historical writer’s mistaken beliefs down through the ages and the Creeds, but I think you are totally sincere in your beliefs just like I was when I was a premil dispy and instead feel compelled just to say if you are only seeking truth and not merely seeking to defend a position at all costs then I am your future.

It won’t be an easy journey at times, but if you let the truth of the bible furrow its message into your heart inevitability you will let go of beliefs that aren’t even in the bible and embrace Preterism.

One example, you stated a literal, single antichrist. This is a common belief among futurists that most people assume is presented in the bible who is a future world leader. Most would be surprised to find out the term is never presented as such in the bible. The term antichrist only appears in 1st and 2nd John and is never a world leader, but apostate Christians, non-believers in the resurrection, etc.

If you read the passage around it for context you can clearly see in every example that there is never one single antichrist, but multiple antichrists. Perhaps the truth about the term is not as much fun as the myth and it is difficult for people to let go of an erroneous belief.

And, yes the Apostles did tell people to look for his return and since all the N.T. was written before 70AD they never said he had already returned—they understand exactly what they are doing—they are divinely inspired and the Holy Ghost gave them true understanding. Paul did tell the Thessalonians (1 Thel 4:15) We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming…clearly any honest reading can’t deny he is saying to them the Lord will come in their generation.

Thank God I was lead by the Spirit to full Preterism and subjected my views to the truth. Allan you will find reading the bible both OT and NT come alive for you like never before, the contradictions are untangled, and there is harmony to the Scriptures that you can hold dear to instead of struggling and having to fudge a little to get it to reconcile itself.

And, if you don’t believe me just test it out for yourself and see what happens. Just be prepared to be convicted by the truth and not have peace till you reconcile with it.

Yes, you said rightly, that you were "Led by the Spirit". The bible is clear that we can be led "By the Spirit", "Into temptation" (The unread say "No"). Yes, Jesus say "Lead us NOT into temptation", is that the opposite of what happened to Him "He was lead by the Spirit INTO TEMPTATION".

I'm starting to agree that synergism is heresy, that is I was a heretic, forgiven, and now in the truth, how can people, or myself miss these truths?

[edit - personal attacks are not permitted].

This is a discusting site, the only reason I'm here is because my friend asked me to.

[edit - personal attacks are not permitted]

 

[John of Japan]

Since I have had no Greek I will not push this point. however I will note that men much more studied than you and I combined have referred to the parousia of Matthew 24 as a non physical event. Men such as Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot, Clarke, Sproul , Henry and many others who are not full preterist see it as a non physical coming of Christ.

A bunch of old white men, except for Sproul the preterist. Don't you have anything in your library except ancient Calvinists? FYI, Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot and Clarke all wrote their tomes long ago. They may have been much better scholars, but I have access to much better Greek tools, such as BAGD, Friberg and the like.

 

[Calv1]

A bunch of old white men, except for Sproul the preterist. Don't you have anything in your library except ancient Calvinists? FYI, Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot and Clarke all wrote their tomes long ago. They may have been much better scholars, but I have access to much better Greek tools, such as BAGD, Friberg and the like.

Yea, the "White Men", is the most important part. Has anyone on this forum [edit - personal attacks are not permitted]?

 

[Benjamin]

Yes, you said rightly, that you were "Led by the Spirit". The bible is clear that we can be led "By the Spirit", "Into temptation" (The unread say "No"). Yes, Jesus say "Lead us NOT into temptation", is that the opposite of what happened to Him "He was lead by the Spirit INTO TEMPTATION".

I'm starting to agree that synergism is heresy, that is I was a heretic, forgiven, and now in the truth, how can people, or myself miss these truths?

And I know, the "Moderator" will come on, not to challenge me, for he knows he can't, but to label me, so as to decieve the others as to what I say.

This is a discusting site, the only reason I'm here is because my friend asked me to.

And Mr. Moderator, instead of attacking me personally, you pick a topic of debate, you post it, and we'll see who wins biblically.

Calv1,

Do you realize nothing you said (your unsolicited rant) has to do with the subject at hand? It seems very odd that you are speaking this way out of the blue. I am sincere in asking: "Are you alright?"

 

[John of Japan]

The OT taught a coming Messiah would be born in the line of David. It is clear Jesus was to be born physically. But to leap to the conclusion then that that means every other coming of Jesus was to be a physical coming is a non sequitur.

You are still not dealing with my original point, which was the interpretation of prophecy. I'll ask it again, though this is getting old.

Every single OT prophecy of the first coming of Jesus Christ was fulfilled in a literal, physical way. So please, tell me the hermeneutic you use to say that the 2nd coming of Christ is not physical and literal. You must have some principle of interpretation that allows you to do that. Otherwise, you can't teach anyone anything other than, "Well that's what I think."

Jesus threatened to come to one of the Churches in Rev. 3:3

‘So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you..

Are you insisting this would have been a physical coming?

Yes, in line with a solid hermeneutical principle. What is your hermeneutical principle for saying it would not be a physical coming?

Paul uses it as well:

Acts 12:7
And behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and woke him up, saying, "Get up quickly." And his chains fell off his hands.

Acts 22:18
and I saw Him saying to me, ‘Make haste, and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’

Acts 25:4
Festus then answered that Paul was being kept in custody at Caesarea and that he himself was about to leave shortly.

Of course Paul uses the word. Why in the world wouldn't he? Are you aware that (1) words can have more than one meaning? And, (2) different authors use words in different ways?

You've go to be kidding. 3-4 years before the destruction of an entire city, Temple and culture would not be said to be coming soon. Especially considering their 1500
year history. Again, you can't be serious with this objection

Well, exactly! That's what I'm saying!! If 70 AD and the destruction of the Temple were the fulfillment of the promised 2nd coming, then the word "soon" meant the prophecy would have to be right before the event!! And you have no (repeat, NO) internal or external evidence to prove that Matt. or Rev. were written immediately before 70 AD--the time they would have to be written in order for the destruction of Jerusalem to be "soon."

 

[Calv1]

Calv1,

Do you realize nothing you said (your unsolicited rant) has to do with the subject at hand? It seems very odd that you are speaking this way out of the blue. I am sincere in asking: "Are you alright?"

Hi! Thanks for your concern, but it's a "Rant" only to you. I was admiring the rare truth I see on this forum. Truth is a rare thing here, it's mainly emotional tradition without scripture, but thanks for looking out for me!

 

[Benjamin]

Hi! Thanks for your concern, but it's a "Rant" only to you. I was admiring the rare truth I see on this forum. Truth is a rare thing here, it's mainly emotional tradition without scripture, but thanks for looking out for me!

You want truth; I’ll give it to you straight on: I suspect you [Edited - Personal comments are not permitted, however accurate they may be]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity

I doubt you will be here long but I wish you well and hope you seek some help in this area.

Good Night.

 

[Calv1]

You want truth; I’ll give it to you straight on: I suspect you have a delusional sense of self and display a type of antisocial behavior that suggests there may be a problem. Possibly a type of narcissistic personality disorder associated with grandiosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity

I doubt you will be here long but I wish you well and hope you seek some help in this area.

Good Night.

Thanks for your "Accusations", but I already have a "Accuser"

 

[John of Japan]

Yea, the "White Men", is the most important part. Has anyone on this forum passed the first grade?

This is incoherent. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[DHK]

Yea, the "White Men", is the most important part. Has anyone on this forum passed the first grade?

And what good fruit and/or contribution to the thread does this remark bring? If you have something of worth to say, then post it; if not it is better to keep your mouth shut lest you put your foot in it and further embarrass yourself.

 

[Logos1]

My position or understanding on this has never changed

But what about our physical body? What happens to our physical body after we die? Does it not come out? Does it "rot away" in the grave? Please elaborate!! I honestly want to know your beliefs!! Thanks in advance!!

:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

Willis

Sorry I missed seeing this earlier.

My view on this subject hasn’t change a single bit since what I was taught as a kid in a totally premil dispy church.

Yes of course the physical body just stays there and rots away into nothingness. Personally I’ve never been taught or believed any thing else.

All this hubado over the physical body being resurrected was new and strange to me when I came on this board.

What I had always been taught and believed fit right in with being a total Preterist. I don’t see this as a view particular to Preterists.

Why would you care or even want a physical body with its aches and pains. The glorified spiritual body is a vast improvement.

It also fits right in with scripture. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:50.

Some people want to cling to a notion of a risen physical body in heaven because Christ has a risen physical body while he was on earth. It seems plain to me that he had a physical body while on earth and a spiritual body in heaven.

Christ had unfinished business to attend to while on earth and took physical form to attend to it. We are not gods and have no work left on earth so we won’t need a physical body.

If I was taught this as a kid in a Southern Baptist church it makes me think all this hubado about getting back a physical body is a recent phenomenon that took hold in recent years.

 

[Logos1]

Is this amusing or just strange

Yes, you said rightly, that you were "Led by the Spirit". The bible is clear that we can be led "By the Spirit", "Into temptation" (The unread say "No"). Yes, Jesus say "Lead us NOT into temptation", is that the opposite of what happened to Him "He was lead by the Spirit INTO TEMPTATION".

I'm starting to agree that synergism is heresy, that is I was a heretic, forgiven, and now in the truth, how can people, or myself miss these truths?

[edit - personal attacks are not permitted].

This is a discusting site, the only reason I'm here is because my friend asked me to.

[edit - personal attacks are not permitted]

Calv

I would respond to this, but there is nothing here except some circular references to spirit and temptation and not wanting to be here. No biblical references nor even those ethereal references to creeds and early believers.

You’ve got to give me something to work with Calv.

If you didn’t want to be here why stick around? Does your friend run your life or you?

 

[Grasshopper]

A bunch of old white men, except for Sproul the preterist. Don't you have anything in your library except ancient Calvinists? FYI, Gill, Barnes, Lightfoot and Clarke all wrote their tomes long ago. They may have been much better scholars, but I have access to much better Greek tools, such as BAGD, Friberg and the like.

Clarke was not a Calvinist. If those who wrote in the 17th and 18th century are unreliable then why would you point to Church Fathers who preceded them by 1500 years:

All the early Christian writers who touched on the subject without fail wrote of a literal 2nd coming of Christ.

So we can't trust John Gill because he didn't have the books you do but we can trust those who preceded him by hundreds of years?

Since you don't like old, or white or Calvinists, Then here you go: http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/

To hopefully wrap up my thoughts, my disagreement is not necessarily that Christ will return physically it is that I must believe that based on your opening post. If I was to be convinced of a physical second coming it would come from scriptures such as Acts 1, not because He came physically the first time. I find no strength in that argument.

Secondly scholars from all stripes and from every age acknowledge that the coming in the Olivet Discourse and other passages point not to a physical bodily return but to a coming in judgment.

Thirdly I am curious as to your belief that Christ threatened to return physically to the church of Sardis. Was that an idle threat? Would that have been the second coming? How would that have affected the other Churches throughout Asia?