How To Refute Preterism: Part 1: “Smash Preterism Now”

June 24, 2009 at 4:10 pm · Filed under Dispensationalist- Brian Simmons, Doctrine, End of the Age, Futurist- B. Simmons, Parousia, Preterism, Preterist Confusion, Resurrection, eschatology, full preterism, partial preterism and tagged: , , , , , , , , , , ,

   Brian Simmons has launched a new audio series entitled “How To Refute Preterism,” in which he showcases the inconsistency and foolishness of Preterist eschatology.  In this first episode of the series, Brian shows that an A.D. 70 parousia means an A.D. 70 resurrection — proving that Partial Preterism is wrong on timing, while Hyper-Preterism is wrong on nature.  As these two systems of Preterism cancel each other out, the obvious conclusion is that the Futurist view of Christ’s coming is correct!

Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/smashpreterismnow.mp3

13 Comments »

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 8, 2009 at 4:46 pm

It is amazing to me that you put Hyper-Preterism which is Heretical because it denies the future coming of the Lord Jesus and the Resurrection of the dead with Judgment Day in the same category as Preterism. If you at least taking the task of refuting someone else’s position, you need to present it accurately, other ways you create ‘a strong-man’ in which case you make yourself look good yet misrepresenting the true position of your opponent side and by that you fall into category of ‘false-teaching’. Please do not mix Heretics with Christians, for if you are to be judged by the same standard, then you are in the same category with Jehovah Witnesses, because they are Dispensational as well.
I wish I could say more and show the fallacy of your interpritation of Preterism, but if you are willing to know what Preterism truly teaches go and study – preteristsite.com – before you made more false claims and teachings. If you like you can contact my email and I’d be glad to discuss it with you.

In Christ Jesus,
Yuri

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Do you have a statement of Faith on your blog?

  Brian Simmons wrote @ August 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm

Hi Yuri,

Thanks for your comments. For the record, I am very much against branding Christians who believe in the fundamentals of the faith as ‘heretical.’ At the same time, though, I feel called to speak out when certain Christians put forth strange interpretations of Scripture that logically swing the doors open for liberalism and heresy to enter the church.

The fact is, Partial Preterism and Full Preterism are so nearly aligned in many ways, that it becomes difficult to take a stance against one without also having to combat the other. When it comes to the whole debate between “orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy,” someone has to draw a line somewhere. Well, I draw the line at Matthew 24. This explains why I’ve classified partial preterism and full preterism together in many respects.

Of course, I welcome your views, even though they may not agree with my own. FYI, though, I am not so uninformed as you may think. I used to be a Preterist, and so am fully aware of the material that is out there.

Peace & Health,

Brian

  Brian Simmons wrote @ August 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm

P.S. ~ As for my basic statement of faith, you can find it at:

http://bsimmons74.wordpress.com/beliefs/

Brian

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 10, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Hello Brian.
Thank you for your response.
Brian, do you consider future Resurrection of the dead and future Final Judgement as ‘the fundamentals of the Christian Faith’??? Do you consider those that deny it as heretics, if not why?
Do you know what was the Hymenaeus’ heresy that Paul had to deliver him to Satan and many because of him have ’suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith’???
Please see –
2 Timothy 2:16-18
1 Timothy 1:19-20
Brian, it surprises me that you were a preterist and did not discern the Heresy of Hyper-Preterism. In your statement of Faith that you gave me it says that you believe in Biblical separation, yet you do not separate heresy from historical fundamentals of Christian Faith, but instead put them in the same category. It only leads me to think that you either do not understand the difference or deny the doctrine of Biblical separation. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Yuri

  Brian Simmons wrote @ August 11, 2009 at 1:00 am

Hi Yuri,

I think you misunderstood my last post. I DO consider Hyper-Preterists heretical, because they deny the fundamentals of the faith. I was merely saying that I wouldn’t call Partial Preterists heretics because most of them affirm the fundamentals (although some do hold liberalistic views of inspiration & canonicity, not to mention Roman Catholic ideas of the “kingdom”).

As for lumping the two systems together, that was explained earlier. The hemeneutic method of both systems is practically identical, and leads to many of the same conclusions. If there wasn’t such a baseline agreement between the two systems, I wouldn’t be trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Peace & Health,

Brian

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 11, 2009 at 2:56 am

Hello Brian.
Perhaps I did misunderstood, though I do not see it that way, but that is not the problem. Perhaps you misunderstood my first post… Let me explain again and again – If I am as Preterist would challenge a Dispensationalist and a Jehowah Witness at the same time because their Escatological interpretations are so close – I do not think you would like me to put you in the same category with JWs because your interpretation of Prophesy is so close to each other. But that is what you are doing to Christian Preterists by placing them together with Hyper-Preterists in your challenge against Preterist’s view. On top of that you may be able to understand the difference between the Preterism and hyper-preterism, however you are not making it clear to others who may listen to your podcast that have no knowledge of the diffrences between the two. And that is misleading, just as it would be misleading for me to challenge Dispensationalists and JW’s at the same time concerning Dispensationalism. For uninformed Christians it would be misleading. I hope you can understand my point what I am trying to point out. We can disagree concerning Escatology, but do not put Christian Preterists together with hyper-preterists without pointing out the difference, and explaining that you challenge Christian and heretical view of Escatology at the same time. Do you think it would be fare for me to say that Dispensationalists and JW’s are so close in their interpretation of Escatology that it is not necessary for me to point out the difference if I teach against Dispensationalism???
I do not know what else to say to be clear about the mistake you are making by challenging heretics and Christians at the same time as if they believe exactly the same thing. And if you know that future Resurrection and Judgment are essentials of the Christian Faith why do you make it so light by putting heretics and Christians in the same challenge when they do not agree on the essentials???

Peace
Yuri

  Brian Simmons wrote @ August 11, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Yuri,

I repeat: Hyper Preterism is DEFINITELY a heresy. If you have any doubts as to my position on this, I urge you to sift through my blog archives. I have NEVER treated H.P. as a valid expression of Christian eschatology. It isn’t.

That said, I think one could forcibly argue that since Partial Preterists say Christ “returned” in A.D. 70, and as the Bible only mentions ONE RETURN of the Risen Christ, that Hyper-Preterism has some validity — if Partial Preterism is true. But I deny this as strongly as I deny the tenets of a wholesale resurrection and judgment having taken place in A.D. 70.

I don’t know which pack you’re running with. But at present the Orthodox Preterist community is in a death struggle with Hyper-Preterists who are trying to infiltrate the church via the Reformed community. You’re a smart guy, Yuri. By now you should have put two and two together, and realized that Preterism is not a correct theology.

Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for you to compare Dispensationalism with other forms of theology that may be parallel. If you want to liken my orthodox Dispensationalism with the heterodoxy of the JW’s, I guess you’re free to do that. But I doubt you’ll get much sympathy.

BTW, are you in the U.S.? if you’d like to talk this over in more detail, feel free to shoot me an email at bsimmons@basicisp.net.

Peace & Health,

Brian

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 12, 2009 at 3:29 am

Hello Brian.
Brian my point was not that I still do not think that you do not reject hyper-preterism, but my point was and is that in your challenge of Preterism you also mention hyper-preterism as if it was identical and orthodox just as Preterism in it’s position. I do not think you do justice by challenging Orthodox Christian view with heretical view of Escatology without explanation. In this way the Doctrines of the Resurrection of the dead and Judgment day become non essential because you mix the two together by offering one challenge to two fundamentally different positions, though in many cases they have the same interpretations of non-fundamental issues. I repeat that this is confusing and misleading to an uneducated Christians and does no good accurate presentation of the true Preterism.
Concerning 70 AD and one and only coming of the Lord Jesus… I do not understand where you coming from? Do you not believe that Dispensationalism teaches that Christ will come at the begining of the Millenium and after that again at the Day of Judgement? What is your position on that?
Also, there is no death-struggle between Preterists and hyper-preterist – Preterists just simply REJECT the heresy of hyper-preterism, end of discussion. They may try to come into Reformed churches as anyone else can, however they will not be accepted as brethren until they repent of their heresy.
Brian, I WILL NOT EVER challenge Dispensational Christians in the same category with JW’s and Seventh Day Adventists simply because I do not believe it would be a correct and a valid representation and categorical accuracy of their fundamental teachings. And the fundamentals are absolutely essential in understanding of non-fundamental doctrines. Therefore I would not have to worry about getting some sympathy.
I am in Canada and perhaps I will write you an email to discuss this issue more. In the mean time just wanted to let you know that I used to be a Dispensationalist before I was convinced of Preterist’s position. What led me to be convinced? – Logic. This makes me very curious what Logic did you use to be convinced of Dispensationalism especially in Chapter 24 of Matthew, speaking of ‘this generation’ and in Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”?
Well, perhaps we can discuss it in personal email.

Peace
Yuri

  Mike Bull wrote @ August 12, 2009 at 5:56 am

Brian

The other option is that there was a resurrection and judgment in AD70, and also a resurrection and judgment at the end of history, which is my view. Hence the first and second resurrections, one for Land, one for World.

  Brian Simmons wrote @ August 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Yuri,

I appreciate your stance. But I think you are overstating the differences between Partial and Full Preterism. Are they really that radical? I don’t think so.

It is a known fact that most Full Preterists were led directly into their views through the Partial Preterist system. With this in mind, couldn’t one call P.P. a crafty way of promoting Hyper-Preterism? Mind, I am not arguing with you, but merely pointing out what is a generally acknowledged fact. I am not the first to draw these conclusions.

As for Matt. 16: 28, 24: 34, etc., you should read Dr. E.W. Bullinger’s notes which he gives in the “Companion Bible.” He actually EXEGETES the original Greek text. Some concept, eh? I have already given my interpretation of those verses, and strongly incline to the view that “this generation” means the Jewish race or nation. Anyhow, this is the view that Scofield gives, and which is ably championed by other Bible scholars. It is based on Biblical usage of the word ‘genea,’ and not on mere lexical evidence. Of course, lexicons do give “race/nation” as an acceptible rendering of “genea.” Whatever your belief, though, Christian eschatology doesn’t hinge on the meaning of just one word. All revelation must be allowed its proper scope and significance. This demands that we interpret the Bible according to a consistent method, and not in an arbitrary fashion.

Yes, it may be perfectly logical to use two or three verses as a fulcrum for spiritualizing large portions of the prophetic record. But this kind of logic is purely deductive (a priori) and is not equipped to gain any objective results. As the old saying goes: “The wish is father to the thought.”

I’m sorry to hear you left Dispensationalism. As one who has studied eschatology from all different angles — Full Pret, Partial Pret, Idealist, A-Mil, Historic Pre-Mil — I firmly believe that Dispensationalism gives the correct presentation of Biblical eschatology. The only kind of Preterism I believe in is that which sees A.D. 70 as a period of Dispensational (not eschatological) significance. I know that many disagree with me. However, I have to follow what I presume to be the clear teachings of Scripture. I do not believe Christ “returned” IN ANY FASHION in A.D. 70.

Anyhow, it sounds like we’re both convinced of the correctness of our respective views; and that is fine. I am not bullying anyone into accepting my views of prophecy. This blog exists solely as a platform for defending Dispensationalism against Preterism. I realize, of course, that I’m a thorn in the side of many Full and Partial Prets. There are folks who would love it if I kicked the bucket tomorrow. But thankfully, God is in charge of the program.

As for private discussion, you have my email. Feel free to contact me any time!

Peace & Health,

Brian

  Yuri Yuriev wrote @ August 17, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Brian,
I have no more desire to continue this dialog. I have made myself more then clear and you have not provided any meaningful counter-argument why you should keep on putting Christians in the same category with heretics. When it comes to putting Dispensationalists in the same category with JW’s – you say that you doubt such person will get any sympathy, yet when it comes to you putting hyper-preterists in the same category with Orthodox Preterists you suddenly make no differentiation and show no concern. That is using a ‘double-standard’, you judge others with a standard you do not apply to yourself. I leave you with God in hopes that you will humble yourself and admit your error.

Yuri

  Karl wrote @ October 21, 2009 at 11:03 pm

Hi Brian, just read some of what you and Yuri were discussing. I am a Preterist, between Partial and Full, not fully convinced on some issues, but I am learning. You had said that you are no longer a Preterist. Well, even if I was to break away from the Preterist view, I wouldn’t say that all that the Preterist teach is heretical, much is very scriptural. The only part that trips most up of what Orthodox Christianity teaches is the Second Coming and the Resurrection. Partial Preterists believe that these are still future. But believing that poses some problems which I have come to find out. When I believed in the variety of ” The Great Tribulation Rapture” teachings there was a host of problems with those teachings as well, more than the problems with Preterism. My question then is what are the main points in which you decided to pull away from Preterism? And what position have you gone back too, or established? Thanks


Your comment

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>