Comments on: How To Refute Preterism: Part 1: “Smash Preterism Now” http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/how-to-refute-preterism-part-1-smash-preterism-now/ Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:52:26 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Karl http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/how-to-refute-preterism-part-1-smash-preterism-now/#comment-1138 Karl Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:03:42 +0000 http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/?p=3701#comment-1138 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 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

]]> By: Yuri Yuriev http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/how-to-refute-preterism-part-1-smash-preterism-now/#comment-1058 Yuri Yuriev Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:48:27 +0000 http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/?p=3701#comment-1058 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 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

]]> By: Brian Simmons http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/how-to-refute-preterism-part-1-smash-preterism-now/#comment-1048 Brian Simmons Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:47:56 +0000 http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/?p=3701#comment-1048 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,

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

]]>