Posted on 10/12/2010 8:06:29 AM PDT by topcat54
So much hot air, so liitle substance.
But you have not shown how specifically. You have simply regurgitated futurist pap.
>> So much hot air, so liitle substance.<<
If my post 18 wasn’t enough “substance” perhaps this help.
One of the characteristics of modern-day Preterism, is its bold assertion that the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation have all been fulfilled, with the exception of the last two chapters. Unfortunately, this belief facilitates a number of subtle heresies, including the denial of the physical resurrection of believers.
Let me explain. In Revelation 19, it is said that the marriage of the Lamb has come. All orthodox Christians agree that this is none other than Christ’s marriage to the church. But Paul equates this marriage to the glorification of believers. See Ephesians 5: 27. Moreover, he says: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery. But I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5: 31-32).
Very well. Christ is now at seated at the right hand of the Father. According to the ecumenical creeds, He will not leave His Father until He returns to judge the quick and the dead. Then He will be joined unto His wife; and they two shall be “one flesh” — that is, they will be glorified together, via physical resurrection. See Philippians 3: 20-21.
For Preterists to say that the marriage occurred in A.D. 70, is to imply that either — 1): the physical resurrection of believers took place in the first century; 2): there was no physical resurrection, and that therefore the bride and Bridegroom did not become “one flesh;” which would mean that the marriage was never consummated; or 3): if they did become one flesh, apart from physical resurrection, then the physical resurrection of believers is not necessary.
Modern Preterists who affirm that the Apocalyptic prophecies have already been fulfilled, teach that the 7th trumpet has already sounded, therefore implying that the dead have already been judged (Rev. 11: 18). Paul corroborates the Apocalypse, saying that the resurrection of believers will happen at this “last trump” (1 Corinthians 15: 52). And since the last trumpet sounds at the close of the 42 months of Great Tribulation, it must be parallel to that resurrection mentioned in Daniel 12: 2.
But here’s the rub. Both Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry state that the resurrection of Daniel 12: 2 happened in A.D. 70. And both of them make it a spiritual (non physical) resurrection. So what they are really teaching, is that some entered into eternal life, and others into eternal contempt, without resurrection bodies! My only question: If that be the case, what theological necessity is there for the raising of dead bodies??
In an article published on January 13, 2008 at the American Vision website, Gary DeMar again goes off-the-wall in his attacks on orthodox eschatology, as he continues a mad quasi-secularist campaign against Dispensationalism. This time he is criticizing John MacArthur, who is currently doing a radio broadcast in defense of the Dispensational system of eschatology.
Since I have not heard MacArthur’s program, I’ll have to rely on Gary’s article for the facts of the matter. Not to mention Gary’s continued refusal to properly classify Hyper-Preterism as a heresy, now he actually goes so far as to validate it and its proponents, and is attacking those who have set out to combat this grave heresy (something Gary won’t do). For the record, MacArthur’s stance is not against “historic” or “orthodox” preterism, but against Hyper-Preterism. Which makes Gary’s antagonism all the more woeful.
Gary says that although MacArthur admits that partial preterism is orthodox, he nevertheless claims that “it is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by [partial] preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error.” To those involved in the Preterist movement, it’s obvious that such a statement would put both Preterists and Hyper-Preterists out of sympathy with MacArthur’s cause. That’s too bad. True to his nature, however, DeMar uses this as leverage for attack.
DeMar writes that MacArthur’s position against Hyper-Preterism is a mere “debater’s trick!” And that the connection he draws between Preterist hermeneutics and Hyper-Preterist theology is use of the “slippery slope” argument! In other words, he denies that MacArthur is waging a bona fide campaign against a heretical theology, but is tackling Hyper-Preterism because he wishes to evade discussing the merits of the more conservative doctrine of “partial preterism.”
DeMar writes the following: “The same argument could be used against a dispensationalist like MacArthur. It would go like this: ‘It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by dispensationalists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-dispensational error.’ Hyper or ultra-dispensationalism is so classified based on when the church age begins, either Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, or Acts 28. Traditional dispensationalists don’t like being included with hyper-dispensationalists.”
Read Gary’s statement closely, for this is the line of thought he uses to criticize MacArthur’s defence of the faith. Gary is overlooking the fundamental difference in the debate regarding various forms of Dispensationalism, and that between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism.
The distinction between Dispensationalism and Ultra-Dispensationalism is not eschatogical at all, nor does it touch upon the doctrines of salvation. It merely involves the question of when the present Dispensation of Grace began (and not when the “age” ended). Classic Dispensationalists claim that it began on the Day of Pentecost, whereas Ultra-Dispensationalists hold that it commenced at a later time. The difference betwen the two theological schools involves neither soteriology nor eschatology, but the placement of Dispensational markers.
On the other hand, the difference between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism is one so major that it effects the very fabric of the Gospel! Both Preterists and Hyper-Preterists claim that the “parousia” mentioned by Christ in Matthew 24: 3 was fulfilled in A.D. 70. But since the term “parousia” is referenced in connection with the resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 23), some conclude that the resurrection also occurred in A.D. 70! Clearly the question involves much more than that of deciding when the present Dispensation began, as it entails the discussion of whether or not the resurrection is a past event. The answer will be found to impact the very doctrines of Christian salvation.
But Gary DeMar takes this comparison between Preterism and Hyper-Preterism and falsely equates it to a dispute between two schools of Dispensationalism: as if the controversies were one and the same. Nevertheless, as Shakespeare said: “Comparisons are slippery.”
DeMar’s analogy falls apart when one realizes that Dispensationalists and Ultra-Dispensationalists both believe in salvation by grace, a future second coming of Christ, a resurrection of the dead, a restoration of Israel, and a yet-to-be Millennium. Whereas Preterists and Hyper-Preterists differ as to whether the resurrection is physical (i.e., after the likeness of Christ’s own) or “covenantal.” The debate among Preterists is not a minor one, but one which ultimately decides whether someone is even a Christian. It is not to be compared to a debate on the timing of Dispensations. Those who say that the resurrection is a past event (and in doing so imply that it is non-bodily in nature) place themselves outside the bounds of Christianity.
But what does Gary say about this? Does he warn others that Hyper-Preterism is a lie? Of course not! He merely says that Hyper-Preterists hold a “non traditional” view of the resurrection. Notice he doesn’t say “non-orthodox,” but “non traditional“–playing upon the Protestant belief that “the Bible alone,” and not “traditions of men,” are to be regarded as sole authority in matters of faith and practice. Thus Gary, in appearing to champion an orthodox cause, leaves it open as to whether or not Hyper-Preterism is truly heresy. Nevertheless, he is quick to affirm that Ultra Dispensationalism is a heresy!
While this jaw-dropping behavior on Gary’s part is truly lamentable, the most reprehensible implication he makes is that MacArthur is arguing against Hyper-Preterism, not because he sees it as a menace to Christianity, but because he’s “afraid” to deal with Partial Preterism. What a cheap shot!
On the basis of what I’ve seen from Gary DeMar during the past year, I am really beginning to hope he defects to the other side and becomes a Hyper-Preterist. Someone who argues in such a fashion does not need to be posing as a Christian, but ought to be in the enemy camp waging warfare by their side, and under their banner. As 2009 gets underway, and Dispensationalism stocks the weapons it needs for the coming war, I fully expect Gary to align himself closer with the heretics he even now favors, even if that entails a departure from the “traditional” faith which stands so obviously in the way of his antichristian iconoclastic agenda.
NO I quoted what Peter says that makes the scoffers willingly ignorant... and Peter was not describing 'futurist pap'. Peter was explaining Genesis 1:2 which describes the condition this earth BECAME after time because of the overthrow/casting down of the first rebel the devil or called at that time Lucifer. Peter calls this time the 'world that WAS then' and it is very old. And the scoffers are ignorant. Paul in Ephesians 1:4 says the elect were chosen before the foundation (which is literally a verb that means the overthrow/casting down) of the world.
The author willingly ignores what Peters says the scoffers will willingly ignore.
But you didn’t present any convincing argument as to how Peter “scoffer” language applies here. I’m sure you have something in mind based on a futurist reading of Scripture.
There's nothing about "creation days" or Methuselah in the passage. That's your pap. You are assuming stuff that is not there.
Usually when one intends to 'study' a passage they at least need to start at the 'beginning'... Now for the unlearned that would be Genesis 1:1... and Peter certainly discloses that is where he begins his instruction....
That sounds like an excuse for not dealing with text at hand. You can spend all day obfuscating the text by running willy-nilly around the Bible without making a point.
The TEXT provides all one needs to shield against the fiery darts.
We can see that instead the world moves in the opposite direction .. We need Christ to come quickly.
Interestingly, interpreters like DeMar, who advocate a continuous fulfillment view of all 70 weeks without a break, are required to put both the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem some 40 years later into the final week of years, which is only seven years in length. Yet DeMar accuses those who see a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week as exercising “silly-putty exegesis,” of stretching out this Biblical time frame in a manner not supported by the text itself. DeMar argues that Christ’s death took place in the middle of the final week, which would then draw to a conclusion in A.D. 33 with the conversion of Paul (an event which in no way is even remotely alluded to in Gabriel’s prophecy). What DeMar fails to tell his readers is that while he argues vehemently against a gap, he is very silent about how to cram two events separated by 40 years into a seven-year period. Perhaps his approach should be called “shoehorn” exegesis!
A closer look at DeMar’s problem reveals a grave contradiction in his understanding of Daniel 9: 24-27 and his view of Matthew 24: 15 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70. “The abomination of desolation is mentioned in one Old Testament book (Daniel 9: 27; 11: 31; 12: 11),” declares DeMar. He then states that “there was no doubt in the minds of those who read and understood Jesus’ words in Matthew 24: 15 that the abomination of desolation prophecy was fulfilled in events leading up to the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70.” Clearly DeMar links the fulfillment if the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9: 27, which will occur in the middle of the week, with the Roman destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 some 40 years later. The problem is that the numbers clearly don’t add up. There is absolutely no way to jam events that occurred 40 years apart into a mere seven years.
One of the characteristics of modern-day Preterism, is its bold assertion that the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation have all been fulfilled, with the exception of the last two chapters. Unfortunately, this belief facilitates a number of subtle heresies, including the denial of the physical resurrection of believers.
Let me explain. In Revelation 19, it is said that the marriage of the Lamb has come. All orthodox Christians agree that this is none other than Christ’s marriage to the church. But Paul equates this marriage to the glorification of believers. See Ephesians 5: 27. Moreover, he says: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery. But I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5: 31-32).
Very well. Christ is now at seated at the right hand of the Father. According to the ecumenical creeds, He will not leave His Father until He returns to judge the quick and the dead. Then He will be joined unto His wife; and they two shall be “one flesh” — that is, they will be glorified together, via physical resurrection. See Philippians 3: 20-21.
For Preterists to say that the marriage occurred in A.D. 70, is to imply that either — 1): the physical resurrection of believers took place in the first century; 2): there was no physical resurrection, and that therefore the bride and Bridegroom did not become “one flesh;” which would mean that the marriage was never consummated; or 3): if they did become one flesh, apart from physical resurrection, then the physical resurrection of believers is not necessary.
Modern Preterists who affirm that the Apocalyptic prophecies have already been fulfilled, teach that the 7th trumpet has already sounded, therefore implying that the dead have already been judged (Rev. 11: 18). Paul corroborates the Apocalypse, saying that the resurrection of believers will happen at this “last trump” (1 Corinthians 15: 52). And since the last trumpet sounds at the close of the 42 months of Great Tribulation, it must be parallel to that resurrection mentioned in Daniel 12: 2.
But here’s the rub. Both Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry state that the resurrection of Daniel 12: 2 happened in A.D. 70. And both of them make it a spiritual (non physical) resurrection. So what they are really teaching, is that some entered into eternal life, and others into eternal contempt, without resurrection bodies! My only question: If that be the case, what theological necessity is there for the raising of dead bodies??
Is the Church the bride of Christ right now or not? Not the “espoused”, but the bride. The marriage happened when Christ rose from the dead and ascended to His Father in heaven to take His seat on the throne of David. All the “marriage” language in the didactic portions of the NT is in the presence tense, not future.
It is possible that what you view as “heresy” is simply trying to read the Bible with dispensationalist/futurist glasses. Preterism for you is just a convenient whipping boy. In truth, your issue is not just with preterists, but it is with all non- dispensationalist/futurist, that is most of Christ’s Church. I would encourage you to get a hold of a (non-futurist) commentary on Rev. 19 and see how most of the Church has historically interpreted that imagery. You analysis of what non- dispensationalist believe wrt Rev. 19 (or most of Revelation for that matter) seems flawed. Before charging someone with heresy, you need to do more careful work.
Modern Preterists who affirm that the Apocalyptic prophecies have already been fulfilled, teach that the 7th trumpet has already sounded, therefore implying that the dead have already been judged (Rev. 11: 18).
Since many futurists have their own problem with the trumpets, I’m not sure you want to bring that up. In any event, it is safe to say that matching similar events in different parts of Scripture is possible when warranted.
But here’s the rub. Both Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry state that the resurrection of Daniel 12: 2 happened in A.D. 70.
I would like to read the details of what you are claiming here. I’m admit I’m not familiar with how they would associate that verse with AD70.
Perhaps you have not noticed, but the language of Daniel 12:2 is not as straightforward as futurist might like to believe.
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.Note the use of the word “many”. If this were automatically to be taken as the final, general resurrection, we would expect to see the word “all”. How do you account for that?
I would encourage you to learn more about what orthodox preterists believe before trying to characterizing their teachings as heresy. And I would remind you once again that your issue is not just with orthodox preterists, but it is with all non- dispensationalist/futurist. For anyone who does not identify himself as a futurist is opposed to your interpretation of Revelation in many areas.
Friend,
Let me also make the point that just like historicism, or idealism, or futurism, preterism is not a perfect system. There are issues that have not been fully worked out. However, without a doubt, it is a far better system that the speculative nonsense that characterizes dispensational futurism. All one needs to do is turn on the TV and watch a few minutes of a “Christian” station to see kind of excesses in interpretation that futurism breeds. Any nut with a vivid imagination and a Scofield Bible can be a “prophecy scholar” in the futurist world.
I understand the issues with the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70 weeks and I believe there is a solution, but what accepted chronology place the crucifixion outside the 70 weeks?
There is no historical justification for that opinion.
Possibly, what the text says and what you think the text says are two different things. You have not demonstrated that they are close in proximity.
Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:47:15 PM · 77 of 94
CynicalBear to topcat54
>>The language is symbolic/apocalyptic.<<
When you start that to support your errors we are finished. When a person uses “it is only symbolic” no further discussion is needed. That comment is often used to discredit the Bible by many unbelievers. One cannot debate the voracity of the Bible with anyone who hides behind the symbolism excuse. That weak argument is indicative of your understanding of Biblical truth. If it doesn’t fit you interpretation, claim symbolism.
I will no longer respond to your posts.
That's your decision, but it is curious that you responded to my posts here and here after that claim. Playing games?
Preterism lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.