Archive for December, 2008
What Hyper-Preterists Don’t Want You To Know
Hyper-Preterists often call their system “Consistent Preterism,” as they purport to hold a consistently preteristic view of Christian eschatology. Nevertheless, what 99% of them don’t reveal is that they are inconsistently embracing a Futuristic soteriology that is no longer in effect if “this age” has ended and the “age to come” arrived.
Let me explain. All New Testament Scriptures are addressed to believers living in “this age.” There is not a single verse Hyper-Preterists can cite which is directly addressed to believers living in the “age to come.” The reason is obvious. The purpose of the Gospel is to deliver us from this present evil age (Galatians 1: 4). Once “this age” has ended, there is no more need for salvation. If one should say there is, then let him answer: “Salvation from what?“ Certainly not from the law, which passed away in A.D. 70. Nor from Satan, who was destroyed (as Hyper-Preterists say) at the same time.
Hyper-Preterism conceals the fact that if Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70 and all Biblical prophecy is fulfilled, there is nothing more to “deliver” anybody from. Under their scheme, the elements of the Old Testament law (including the moral law) have been completely dissolved, thus taking away the standard of condemnation. For “sin is transgression of the law” (1 John 3: 4); and “where no law is, there is no transgression“ (Romans 4: 15). Hence God and mankind are no longer at enmity. Or if they are, then on what is such enmity based?
Scripture teaches but one gulf between God and man, and that is sin. Bridge that gulf, and the controversy ceases. If death was destroyed in A.D. 70, then there is no more sin. For “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor. 15: 56). Sin, death, and the law are all intimately connected. Take away one, and the others fall with it.
The consistent Preterist view holds that all salvation was perfectly consummated in A.D. 70. Those born after A.D. 70 never needed salvation, for they were never under the Old Covenant. This is the dirty secret that Hyper-Preterists don’t want you to know about.
Conservative Hyper-Preterists try to get around this evidence by stating that the application of realized eschatology is now individual. But the statement is absurd. In order to make their Hyper-Preterism stick, they must hold that there was a “general judgment” and “general resurrection” of all men in A.D. 70. Well, that which is universal in scope must also be universal in its effects. Therefore, if Hyper-Preterism is true, all men must be saved. For the individual is really part of the universal. Therefore, the universal effects of an A.D. 70 general judgment would cover individuals living past that event.
This universality of the parousia is verified in verses such as Rev. 21: 24, which speaks of the “nations which are saved” walking in the light of the New Jerusalem. It is clear that a preteristic second advent would have greatly altered the relation between God and man, insomuch that whole nations were saved in A.D. 70! This is surely much more than an individual matter, isn’t it?
Then, too, conservative Hyper-Preterists, in pleading for an individual fulfillment of realized eschatology, destroy their own theory by a fatal inconsistency. For some of them, to avoid the view that men are resurrected now claim that we actually receive our resurrection bodies when we die. Such teachers affirm that the “age to come” is entered at the death of the believer. And this of course allows the Gospel to continue past A.D. 70.
But the proposed solution falls apart at the slightest touch. If we enter the age to come at physical death, then we’re not in that age now. But if we’re not in the “age to come” now, then we must still be in “this age.” And if “this age” is still ongoing in A.D. 2008, then it couldn’t have ended in A.D. 70.
The need to be “saved” arises from an existence of those very conditions which Hyper-Preterists (in order to be consistent) must claim were destroyed in A.D. 70. Since Christ’s preterist advent was universal in scope and in effect, there is no way to carry His soteriological teachings past A.D. 70, whether corporately or individually. For those very teachings were given to address conditions which Hyper-Preterists teach (in theory, not in practice) no longer exist.
Either the elements of the Old Covenant age were dissolved, or they weren’t. There is no middle-ground. If they were, then there is no more need for ”deliverance.” If they were not, then it is clear that we are still living in “this age,” and Christ hasn’t returned.
But sometimes Hyper-Preterists employ an argument out of Revelation 21, which claims that in certain verses the standpoint of the Apocalypse has shifted from the time-frame of the writer (A.D. 66-67) to the “age to come.” This argument claims that the description of those left outside the city is a prophetic foreview of conditions existing after Christ’s second coming.
But this theory too breaks down when we realize that the whole book is addressed to Christians living in “this age.” Hyper-Preterists say that the invitation, “whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely” (Rev. 22: 17) is addressed to Christians living in the “age to come.” But what do they make of the next two verses?
(Revelation 22: 18-19) “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man should take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.”
Clearly, if the invitation applies to Christians living in the “age to come,” then so do the warnings and curses. But the curses of “this book” were (according to Hyper-Preterists) exhausted by the vial judgments of A.D. 70. So what say ye, Hyper-Preterists? Why are you trying to hide the fact that consistent Preterism leads to Universalism. Having not a single Scripture which directly addresses believers in “the age to come,” can you not see what problems you create by saying that the age to come has already arrived? Not only is the whole New Testament canon thrown out of joint, but salvation by the Gospel is nullified.
We must keep in mind that salvation is preached to those living under the Old Covenant. You say the Old Covenant ended in A.D. 70. If it truly ended (and it had to, if all Bible prophecy was fulfilled 2,000 years ago) then the deliverance has been effected with such universal, worldwide, and all-encompassing results that it is impossible for anyone to still be living under the “elements.” Only acknowledge this, and you’ll do as many others have, and embrace a consistently universalistic view.
But I hope you don’t. Instead, my wish is that you repent of these perversion of Christ’s Gospel, and return to the faith that you once received–even the faith by which you claim to have been saved. Remember thy first love. Repent, and do the first works (Rev. 2: 4-5). Oh, how sweet is God’s grace that leadeth one from these errors to restore his soul beside the still waters! He can heal thee today, if thou wilt trust in Him.
But oh, Preterist, do something soon! for there is but a small step from Hyper-Preterism to atheism, and from that to the grave. Will you take that step? or will you return to the light from which you turned aside when you accepted the false Gospel of Hyper-Preterism? The choice is up to you. My only business is to warn others of what the leaders of Hyper-Preterism are hiding that people may avoid the snares and pitfalls of a “consistent Preterist” view.
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– A Greek Lesson For Hyper-Preterists
(from The Companion Bible, 1922)
The word nekros (Noun and Adjective) has different meanings, according as it is used in different connections:-
1. With the Article (hoi nekroi) it denotes dead bodies, or corpses or carcasses in the grave, apart from the personality they once had. This is the Old Testament idiom also. See Septuagint Genesis 23:3, 4, 6, 8. Deuteronomy 18:11; 28:26. Jeremiah 7:33; 9:22; 19:7. Ezekiel 37:9. See notes on Matthew 22:31. 1Corinthians 15:35.
2. Without the Article (nekroi) it denotes the persons who were once alive, but who are now alive no longer : that is dead persons as distinct from dead bodies. Compare Deuteronomy 14:1. Judges 4:22. Lamentations 3:6. And see notes on Matthew 22:32. Acts 26:23. 1Corinthians 15:12, 12, 13, 15, 16. Hebrews 13:20, etc.
3. With a Preposition, but without the Article, which may be latent in the Preposition (ek nekron), it denotes out from among dead people. See notes on Mark 9:9, 10. Luke 16:30, 31. John 20:9. Acts 10:41. Romans 6:13; 10:7, 9; 11:15. 1Corinthians 15:12-20. Hebrews 11:19.
4. With a Preposition, and with the Article; for example ‘ek ton nekron, it denotes emphatically out from among the dead bodies, or corpses. Compare Ephesians 5:14. Colossians 1:18; 2:12.
The bearing of this on 1Peter 4:6 will be better seen if we note that we have nekroi (See No. 2 above), meaning people who were then dead, but who had had the Gospel preached. (Appendix 121. 4) to them while they were alive; and this is confirmed by the Greek Particle, men ( = although) in the next clause, which is ignored both by the Authorized Version and Revised Version. The verse reads thus : “For to this end to those who are (now) dead was the Gospel preached, that though they might be judged in the flesh, according to [the will of] men, yet they might live [again, in resurrection], according to [the will of] God, as regards [the] spirit“; that is in spiritual bodies, spoken of in 1Corinthians 15:44, 45.
To this end – to give those to whom the apostle wrote this hope – the Gospel was preached to them, as described in 1Peter 1:12, 25. The hope of glory was thus set over against their sufferings (1Peter 1:11; 4:13).
More Hyper-Preterist Delusions
Here’s another interesting conversation between an orthodox Christian and a Hyper-Preterist, which proves the inconsistency of the latter view. Hyper-Prets claim that we’re in the “age to come” now, and yet they hold that salvation is still ongoing. But the orthodox Christian would say that an ongoing salvation proves we are still in “this age.” For whatever is “eternal” cannot be subject to change/flux. But the “age to come” is eternal. Therefore, since souls are still subject to change, we cannot be in the eternal age.
PreteristMouse writes: “Wow. Do YOU ever stop to look in the mirror at the hateful things that YOU say about those who sincerely believe our Savior spoke the truth?”
MillennialSaint: “Christ never taught your doctrines, did He??”
EndTimesMan: “Yes, of course. On the otherhand, for example, you say there is an end to the age to come but God says there is no end. We therefore in this example say Jesus did teach our doctrine. That is just one example.”
MillennialSaint: “Yes, that’s one example of your false assumptions. If the age to come is now, “salvation” is no longer possible (or necessary), for the eternal state of all men is already fixed & final. The fact that men’s souls are still changeable proves that Hyper-Preterism is false.”
EndTimesMan: “Wrong! Read Isaiah 9:7.”
MillennialSaint: “Yes, the kingdom will continue forever, ONCE the eternal state of all men is fixed at the general judgment. After the judgment there is no possibility of altering our spiritual states. If there is, we cannot say we’re in the eternal age. For that which is changeable cannot be eternal. Sounds like the logical error is on your side, Bo.”
EndTimesMan: “After the judgement, during the 1st century, which is exactly what Jesus taught, the eternal state for those judged was set but every generation after still must choose who they will serve. When death comes to each individual the judgement for the individual takes place with regards to Christ and with regards to works (1Cor 3). Your error is that you do not believe Jesus was speaking of the generation He said He was speaking of. Therefore you speculate, which is the hallmark of futurism.”
MillennialSaint: “You’re being inconsistent, and I can prove it. If each person who comes into this world is free to accept or reject Christ, then we are still in “this age.” Why? Because his/her salvific state is subject to change. But there can be no change/flux in eternity. If we’re in the eternal age, then the state of our souls is fixed and final. But, good men often become bad, and bad men often become good. Since all men are still in a state of change/flux, it’s obvious that we are not in the “age to come.”
EndTimesMan: “We are not talking about the eternal life in heaven only but the eternal age to come which is partly this life we are in and the rest our heavenly life with Christ. Offer scripture to prove yourself.”
MillennialSaint: “Ah! So you’re saying that the eternal state is entered after DEATH? Then “this age” couldn’t have ended in A.D. 70. Otherwise, we’d all be in heaven now. But if we’re not in heaven now, we’re still in “this age.” So you’re being inconsistent.
As for Scriptures, here’s one: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy stll: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still” (Rev. 22: 11).
Notice the above verse was written BEFORE your alleged A.D. 70 general judgment. If the judgment already occurred, then the state of all men is unchangeable, as shown by the above verse. The time was “at hand” when John wrote, remember? Therefore, the space for repentance had just about ended. Wherefore John said, “Let good enough alone. He that is unjust, let him remain unjust. He that is holy, let him remain unholy. For pretty soon, the state of all men (both good and bad) will be fixed and final.”
Obviously, though, John was “in the Spirit in the day of the Lord.” (Rev. 1: 10). That is, he saw visions pertaining to “that day” (Great Tribulation) which were still future. The whole standpoint of his writings is not “A.D. 66-67″ but the “Day of the Lord.”
EndTimesMan: “Read it again, that is not what I said. Poor attempt on your part to say I said something I didn’t. Readers will see how I said it.vain attempt at proof. This has nothing to do with our discussion. You endevour to continue denying the timing Christ put things in. Once you come to the true timetables then the rest will fit. Your speculation is not impressive and actually speaks something else of you. You have no proof, do you?”
MillennialSaint: “Well, just like atheists, I give you proof and you refuse. This is nothing new. As for the timing, though, my last post proves my position. In the letters to the seven churches, Jesus tells them to “repent!” But in Rev. 22: 11, He says it’s too late to repent. Why the difference? Because the standpoint of the Apocalypse is not “A.D. 66-67,” but the “Day of the Lord.” John visions relate to the time of which he wrote, not the time at which he wrote.”
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=147767
Ray Comfort– The Atheist Starter Kit
If you are a beginner atheist, there’s a belief system you should embrace and a language you should learn, or you will find yourself in trouble. Here are ten suggestions for the novice:
1. Whenever you are presented with credible evidence for God’s existence, call it a “straw man argument,” or “circular reasoning.” If something is quoted from somewhere, label it “quote mining.”
2. When a Christian says that creation proves that there is a Creator, dismiss such common sense by saying “That’s just the old watchmaker argument.”
3. When you hear that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose (the pleasures of Heaven, and the endurance of Hell) by obeying the Gospel, say “That’s just the old ‘Pascal wager.’”
4. You can also deal with the “whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart,” by saying that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. None.
5. Believe that the Bible is full of mistakes, and actually says things like the world is flat. Do not read it for yourself. That is a big mistake. Instead, read, believe, and imitate Richard Dawkins. Learn and practice the use of big words. “Megalo-maniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” is a good phrase to learn.
6. Say that you were once a genuine Christian, and that you found it to be false. (The cool thing about being an atheist is that you can lie through your teeth, because you believe that are no moral absolutes.) Additionally, if a Christian points out that this is impossible (simply due to the very definition of Christianity as one who knows the Lord), just reply “That’s the ‘no true Scotsman fallacy.’” PLEASE NOTE: It cannot be overly emphasized how learning and using these little phrases can help you feel secure in dismissing common sense.
7. Believe that nothing is 100% certain, except the theory of Darwinian evolution. Do not question it. Believe with all of your heart that there is credible scientific evidence for species-to-species transitional forms. When you make any argument, pat yourself on the back by concluding with “Man, are you busted!” That will make you feel good about yourself.
8. Deal with the threat of eternal punishment by saying that you don’t believe in the existence of Hell. Then convince yourself that because you don’t believe in something, it therefore doesn’t exist. Don’t follow that logic onto a railway line and an oncoming train.
9. Blame Christianity for the atrocities of the Roman Catholic church–when it tortured Christians through the Spanish Inquisition, imprisoned Galileo for his beliefs, or when it murdered Moslems in the Crusades.
10. Finally, keep in fellowship with other like-minded atheists who believe as you believe, and encourage each other in your beliefs. Build up your faith. Never doubt for a moment. Remember, the key to atheism is to be unreasonable. Fall back on that when you feel threatened. Think shallow, and keep telling yourself that you are intelligent. Remember, an atheist is someone who pretends there is no God.
Lactantius– The Foolishness of Atheism
(from The Divine Institutes, c. 315 A.D.)
“The sum of the matter is this: The unlearned and the foolish esteem false religion as true, because they neither know the true nor understand the false. But the more sagacious, because they are ignorant of the true, either persist in those religions which they know to be false, that they may appear to possess something; or worship nothing at all, that they may not fall into error: whereas this very thing partakes largely of error, under the figure of a man to imitate the life of cattle.”
Rev. J. Randall Price, Th.M., Ph.D– Historical Problems With Preterist Interpretation of Christ’s Warning To Flee
Preterists also attempt to find a first-century fulfillment in the flight of those who correctly identified and heeded the sign of the “Abomination of Desolation”(Matt. 24:16-20; Mk. 13:14-18), in agreement with Luke 21:21, in the event of the Jewish-Christian flight to Pella (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.5.2-3; Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus 15).
In the first place the historicity of the Pella tradition is questioned by many ancient and modern scholars, significantly compromising its authority as a source for comparison with Scripture. However, even if we accept its historicity, fatal problems present themselves for any attempt at correlation. According to the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius Christians fled to Pella in AD 61-62, many years before the beginning of the Jewish Revolt in AD 66, and many more years before the “Abomination of Desolation” (according to the Preterist’s interpretation) occurred with the Roman army surrounding Jerusalem or entering the Temple precincts in AD 70.
To this problem should be added the fact that the Romans controlled the Judean countryside (to which Jerusalem belongs) as well as its immediate environs for some time prior to their siege of the city, which would have made it practically impossible for either Jerusalemites or those in fields outside the city, to make an escape. Neither Jesus could have meant that a flight should take place once the siege began, for any escaping at this time would have run into the hands of the enemy!
Moreover, as many commentators have observed, the biblical command to “flee to the mountains” (Matt. 24:16; Mk. 13:14; cf. Lk. 21:21) hardly agrees with the geographical setting of Pella in the low-lying foothills of the Transjordan valley on the other side of the River Jordan. Since Jerusalem is called “the Holy Mountain” (Psa. 48:1; cf. 87:1-2), “Mount Zion” (Psa. 74:2; 78:68-69), and is situated and surrounded by “mountains” (Psa. 125:1-2; cf. 48:2) “fleeing to the mountains” could not be interpreted as descending to a lower elevation and it is far more reasonable that “the mountains” of Jesus reference would be those that immediately surrounded the city (i.e., the Judean hills, cf. Ezek. 7:15-16), since Jesus’ command was not to flee from Judea but within it.
In like manner, Jesus’ unrestricted warning “to all who are in Judea” to quickly escape once the sign of the “Abomination of Desolation” was “observed,” extended even to the extreme of leaving behind possessions in order to flee in haste (Matt. 24:17-18; Mk. 13:15-17). The urgency of an immediate departure and of the threat of danger if delayed, does not accord with the prolonged condition of the war, especially before the siege (three years), which would have offered a prolonged opportunity to make a well-prepared escape.
The same objection applies to the admonition to pray that the “flight might not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (Matt. 24:20; cf. Mk. 13:18). In the winter (especially in Jerusalem where temperatures are 10% colder than the rest of the country) stormy weather comes with torrential rains that make crossing wadis in the Judean hills treacherous, but this warning seems superfluous (or ill-informed) if the spring to summer siege and assault on the city and Temple in AD 70 was intended. Why would Jesus say they should pray for something He knew would not happen? In the case of the admonition concerning travel on the Sabbath, where rabbinic law prohibited going more than “a Sabbath days journey” (i.e. beyond the immediate vicinity of the city), why would this matter given the lengthy opportunity for escape in the prolonged war with Rome? Again, Jesus is predicting very different conditions than those that existed during the conflict that culminated in AD 70.
More problematic still to the Preterist’s interpretation is Jesus’ statement that “unless those days had been shortened, no life would have been saved …” (Matt. 24:22; Mk. 13:20). From the Preterist’s position the purpose of “those days” was to effect a final judgment on the Jewish people in fulfillment of Christ’s judgment-coming. Why, then, should any life be saved? The satisfaction of divine justice should require a complete accounting (although thousands of Jews did, in fact, survive the war). If the reason is to spare “the elect,” one must wonder who are these “elect?” Preterists would not identify them with Jews for the reason just stated, but if these are identified as “Christians” why had they not believed Jesus’ prophecy and fled to Pella with the rest of their brethren?
Moreover, the language here cannot be restricted to a local population, but extends to the whole of the human race as the Greek (“all flesh would not be saved”) reveals. Only an end-time conflict of global proportions could adequately satisfy the language of this unprecedented warning (in keeping with the nature of the Great Tribulation in the previous verse). Preterism can only explain this verse by hyperbole or minimizing the application of the term sarx (“flesh”). The same problem applies to the Preterist’s interpretation of the eschatological language of the climax of the Olivet Discourse with its cosmic catastrophes and supernatural signs.
Dr. J. Randall Price- The “Times of Refreshing”
The phrases “times of refreshing” and “period of restoration of all things” are expressions for the messianic era or the promised restoration of national Israel to the divine ideal (cf. Isaiah 2:2-4; 4:2-6; 11:6-9; 62:1-12; et. al.). While these exact expressions appear only here in the New Testament and have no direct precedent in the LXX, parallel ideas of the Messianic era do exist in the Jewish apocalyptic literature: “times of refreshing” (4 Ezra 7:91, 95; 11:46; 2 Baruch 73-74; 1 Enoch 96:3); “the period of restoration of all things” (4 Ezra 7:75; 13:26-29; 1 Enoch 45:5; 51:4). The context of Acts 3, which equates both terms with one event, requires an analogous interpretation.
The Greek term anapsuxis (“refreshing”) is commonly used by Luke to refer to “the expectation of the time of salvation as relief following afflictions” (Luke 21:7-19, 28, 36; Acts 9:16; 14:22), and therefore the connection with the term “times” and the phrase “from the presence of the Lord” may refer to the deliverance of the Jewish remnant from Gentile domination and resultant persecution (ultimately effected at the end of the Tribulation period) by the advent of Messiah (Luke 21:28). In this respect it is analogous to the Greek term anesis (“relief”) in 2 Thessalonians 1:7.
The Greek term apokatastasis (“restoration”) in Acts 3:21 is derived from the verb apokathistemi (“to restore [to an earlier condition]”), and appears in Acts 1:6 for “restoring the kingdom to Israel,” and in Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:12 (cf. Malachi 4:5) of Elijah’s coming to “restore all things.”
Parallel expressions of this period of “restoration” in the New Testament (though broader in scope) may be found in Jesus’ use of “the regeneration” (palinenesia) in Matthew 19:28 and Paul’s description of the future age of redemption in Romans 8:18-23. This term for “restoration” is especially related to national Jewish repentance toward the redemptive work of Messiah, since the two terms come from the same root and seem to be patterned after the prophetic condition for the restoration of the messianic kingdom: “(re)turn to Me [with a restored heart], and I will return to you [with restored blessings]” (Zechariah 1:3; Malachi 3:7; cf. Matthew 3:1-2; 4:17).
http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Prophetic%20Postponement.pdf
