Preterist heretical?

[Ellis Murphree]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Spurgeon was historic premill. Why do you keep repeating your nonsense about Spurgeon?

Spurgeon was HISORICAL premill. However, I doubt that many today hold to the same eschatological views as did CHS. The following link gives a brief summary of his eschatology. Much of what we know about his thinking in this area is a bit "gray", since he generally avoided discussing it.

http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm#ans-sum

 

[Ellis Murphree]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
There is no danger in preterist theology like there is no danger is bozo the clown is the real antichrist theology.

Preterism is for those who have neither the skills or understanding of Scripture. It is for the lazy, incompetent, ignorant, etc. It is sort of like a 'union' for bad theologians.

I heard R.C. Sproul was a Preterist. Are you saying he's a bad theologian?

I ask that to say this, most people in our churches believe pre-trib pre-mil because it is what is promoted in Left Behind and in the majority of end times writings out there. I think this shows laziness, incompetence, ignorance, etc. on the part of our church members. Instead of reading for themselves, they assume Tim LaHaye wouldn't lie to them.

While I don't agree with Preterism personally, it is not a matter of ignorance that people believe something like it. Since it's the minority position and not the one promoted most of the time, it takes more work to find information on it. That's not ignorance.

...sorry...needed to rant I guess...

</font>[/QUOTE]

You nailed it! While I'm still formulating difinitive views as to my eschatology, I would say that classifying folks with ANY differing eschatological views as ignorant and unlearned is a bit foolish. The mainstream would say "pretrill, premill", without giving it a second thought.

Many of those who have espoused a differing view on this - such as partial-preterism - are generally folks who have spent a great deal of time studying the issue out.

I guess that I'll end MY rant now

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I would classify Sproul as a "Partial Preterist". I'm trying to find ANY full preterist.

If there are, they must "allegorize" almost ALL prophecy. And that is not good hermeneutic.

www.preteristarchive.com

They're out there.

 

[Grasshopper]

I'm trying to find ANY full preterist.

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/home.htm
http://www.messiahreformed.org/index.htm
http://www.christcovenantchurch.com/
http://www.eschatology.org/aboutus.html

There will be more and more.

Also Todd Dennis who runs the preterist archive web-site is a Baptist. A fact that must greatly disturb most on this board.

Partial-prets are numerous. RC Sproul being the most recognizable. Here are a couple I listen too:

http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/index.htm

http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

 

[KenH]

I am just beginning to study full preterism and will soon start reading The Consummation of the Ages by Kurt M. Simmons. I have yet to find an eschatological system that totally fits with the Bible so I will see how closely this one does so.

I appreciate Grasshopper's defense of real preterism on this board and his guidance to some very good preterist websites. I will say that his posts on this subject make a whole lot more sense than dispensational premillennialism.

Here are some other websites that might be of interest:

http://planetpreterist.com

http://newjerusalemministriesboards.com

www.preteristcentral.com

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
A pre 70 date for Revelation is unlikely

The more I look at this dating controversy the more likely it becomes. You might enjoy reading Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, by Kenneth L. Gentry.

 

[James_Newman]

You hear that sound?

Thats falling away.

 

[Grasshopper]

You hear that sound?

Thats falling away.

Ed would call that the rapture.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
You hear that sound?

Thats falling away.

I hate it when
i fall away and fall to the ground
instead of into the catching arms
of Jesus

I have a friend that does "rapture jumps".
He jumps up into the air and says: "here
I am, Jesus, catch me". One of these times
Jesus is going to catch him! I never
did convince him one day he is going to
fall away from this earth in the
rapture and fall right into the arms of
Jesus. No jumping involved

 

[APuritanMindset]

Ya know...I see a lot of name calling, but no one answering the original post. So, even though I posed earlier, I'll make an answer.

Preterists aren't heretics. They just hold a view of the end times that particularily pre-mil people find hard to swallow. As I am currently studying this topic, I find myself leaning toward an Amil position, but I am unsure yet. Does that make me a heretic too?

Look, Just because someone doesn't believe what is the popular thing to believe or what is most heavily pushed among evangelicals doesn't make them a heretic. I think The Purpose Driven Life is theologically incorrect and way out there in left field a lot of the time. Does that make me a heretic? No. Believing in Rick Warren doesn't save me. And believing in dispensational premillennialism doesn't save me either. It is faith in Jesus Christ that has saved me.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
Preterists aren't heretics. They just hold a view of the end times that particularily pre-mil people find hard to swallow. As I am currently studying this topic, I find myself leaning toward an Amil position, but I am unsure yet. Does that make me a heretic too?

Nope.

Salvation &gt; eschatology!

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by APuritanMindset:
It is faith in Jesus Christ that has saved me.

If I may flesh that out a bit - Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone.

There is nothing in that Biblically sound statement about eschatology.

 

[James_Newman]

2Ti 2:16-18
(16) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
(17) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
(18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[KenH]

I don't think that preterists defend Hymenaeus and Philetus. Also, that was written before A.D. 70. Also, I am not going to defend full preterism as I am just beginning to study it, but I am not going to condemn it either simply because it doesn't sit well with the current popular eschatology among a certain subsection of Christians.

 

[James_Newman]

Well, full preterism certainly espouses that the resurrection is past, and here we have a direct admonishment from Paul against such a teaching. If we believe that Paul only wrote his epistles for people living before AD 70, why do we need a bible in the first place?

 

[Grasshopper]

Well, full preterism certainly espouses that the resurrection is past, and here we have a direct admonishment from Paul against such a teaching. If we believe that Paul only wrote his epistles for people living before AD 70, why do we need a bible in the first place?

I'll type slowly so maybe you can get it. No preterist beleives the resurrection had occured when Paul wrote this. So therefore anyone who taught this was wrong. Because things were still future to Paul does not mean they are future to us.

Now why would any one beleive the resurrection had already occured when Paul wrote this? Why didn't Paul just say "go look at the graveyard". Perhaps because they weren't looking for a physical resurrection.

If we believe that Paul only wrote his epistles for people living before AD 70, why do we need a bible in the first place?

Do you read the Old Testament?

 

[James_Newman]

You are correct, it happened right after he put the pen down, and then Hyme and Phil got all red faced and said, oh there it is, we were wrong. Sorry Paul.

I absolutely read the OT, and I believe there is still prophecies in the OT that have not yet been fulfilled.

Maybe you could explain what the teaching of Hyme and Phil may have done to the people living pre AD70 that would make their faith shipwreck, but has no bearing on us today?

 

[James_Newman]

Was Jesus Christ not raised bodily? And was He not the firstfruit of them that sleep?

 

[Daniel David]

Preterists are heretical as they deny the resurrection of the body. They have become a pimp of scripture instead of submitting to its teaching. Their doctrine is foolishness and worthy of the ignorant only.

Ken, it mattes only to the preterist when Revelation was written. I personally don't care if it was the first book in the N.T. written, it still doesn't do away with its message.

Preterism on the other hand falls apart when a post 70 AD date is assigned to it.

 

[Grasshopper]

I absolutely read the OT, and I believe there is still prophecies in the OT that have not yet been fulfilled.

But most of the OT, which has been fulfilled, you have no use for? After all it is just history now.

Perhaps you would like to show me which OT prophecies are still left unfulfilled. That would be an excellent thread. Perhaps we can start with Dan 12.

Like it or not the book of Romans was written to those Christians in Rome, not 21st century Americans. The letter to the Corinthians was written to who? Texans?
When we try to interpret scripture through 21st century American eyes instead of the 1st century Hebrew mind you get yourself in trouble.(pre-Mill)

Paul didn't correct the nature of the resurrection only the timing. Our difference is the definition of resurrection. Physical or spiritual.

I Cor 15:21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

The resurrection that comes through Christ is tied to the death of Adam. So is it Adams physical death Paul is concerned with or his spiritual death? Is redemptive history about Adam's physical death or did Christ come to reconcile man back to God because of Adam's spiritual death. Your position assumes Adam would have never died physically had he not eaten of the tree. The Bible does not teach that. Sin brought about spiritual death thus in Christ we are resurrected back into fellowship with God.