Archive for church history
What Moses Saw From Mount Nebo
(Deut. 34: 1-4) “And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan. And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea. And the south, and the plain of the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, unto Zoar. And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.”
In their desperation to maintain the view that the church superseded Israel, Replacement Theologians have made all kinds of false claims respecting the land that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The popular view is to concede that the inheritance is the literal land of Canaan, but that the promises were fulfilled in Old Testament times. Joshua 21: 43-45 is often quoted as if that text sets the matter at rest.
However, we cannot forget that the land was promised to each of the patriarchs as a personal possession (see Genesis 13: 15; 26: 3; 28: 13; 35: 12). This promise was certainly never made good in their lifetime, for Stephen later affirmed that God “gave [Abraham] none inheritance in it, no not so much as to set his foot on: yet He promised that He would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child” (Acts 7: 5).
Paul also refers to land of promise as the country in which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob sojourned, dwelling in tents (Hebrews 11: 9). From this it is evident that the patriarchs never received any fulfillment of the promise in their own lifetimes. The promise must therefore be made good in resurrection.
True, Paul declares that Abraham looked for “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and Maker is God” (Hebrews 11: 10). However, this same city was later seen, in prophetic vision, descending to earth (Rev. 21: 2). So there is no contradiction between the promise made to the patriarchs, and the ultimate realization of that promise as depicted in the New Testament.
Regardless of what we today may think, the early Christians certainly believed that the land promises would be fulfilled during the Millennium. Irenaeus writes: ”If, then, God promised [Abraham] the inheritance of the land, yet he did not receive it during all the time of his sojourn there, it must be, that together with his seed, that is, those who fear God and believe in Him, he shall receive it at the resurrection of the just” (Against Heresies, V. xxxii. 2).
What Moses saw from Nebo certainly confirms the fact that what God promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a literal alotment of land, and not a mere spiritual inheritance! It is our firm belief that what God promised will be made good; and that we, who receive blessings with Abraham will surely inherit the world (Romans 4: 15) and judge angels (1 Cor. 6: 3). In view of these promises, we await the time of our Lord’s return, with joy unspeakable.
Why I Don’t Invest In Religious Utopias
Subsidiary to the issues surrounding Preterism is a doctrine in which it is held that the visible church will one day rule the world, prior to the return of Jesus Christ. This is, of course, a form of post-millennial theology, and so it’s nothing new. Some of the greatest Protestant teachers of all time have envisioned a golden age that will set sunshine on this blighted world before Christ returns to judge the quick and the dead.
Wedded to Preterism, however, this concept can be viewed as a powerful ideological weapon which, properly equipped, is seen fit to plow its way through all obstacles, in view of a set goal. That goal is nothing less than the acquisition of worldly dominion by the visible church.
Whether or not this belief is at least tentatively Roman Catholic in its agenda and worldview, is a matter up for discussion. If the answer is affirmative, then we have in the RCC a historical playing out of the dominion ideal which should make every Christian wary to put it into practice once more.
As I see it, there are several problems with such an ideology, which must prevent it from ever reaching fruition. The main obstacle concerns matters of Biblical eschatology, which impact saleability, thus negatively affecting practicability.
Few Christians are willing to believe that Jesus Christ “returned” in any manner in A.D. 70. And yet this is the teaching needed most of all to bolster the dominionist approach. To clear the board of annoying end-time prophecies which stand in the way of long-term goals and dreams, the great majority of eschatological passages must be shuttled back into a first-century fulfillment. But this results in mischievous marginalization of essential texts, some of which are soteriological in nature.
Because of its reductionist attitude, Preterism becomes distinctly “anti climactic” in its effect on Christian believers. This obviously hurts saleability. In order to hook Christians into accepting a Preterist scheme, the bait must be made at least semi-palatable. Preterists instinctively realize that they must popularize their view as much as possible; so they follow suit. But aside from gaining small circles of enthusiasts, their numbers bear no comparison with the growing tide of Christians who buy books on endtime prophecy. Dominionists only utilize a Preterist scheme, not because it is the best theological answer, but because it offers seemingly formidable objections to Dispensational theology. But because Preterism is not “good enough” for the majority, it is unfit to serve as an alternative to classical evangelical eschatology.
Then there is another issue that comes to mind. Even if the visible church, as conceived by Dominionists, were to gain control of the world institutions tomorrow, it would still have to deal with a large number of dissenting Christians. In fact, I doubt that in this world, dissenters will ever go away. The continued (and sometimes nagging) existence of those with opinions different from our own is something that most of us have learned to take for granted. We accept it as a matter of course.
But the very existence of an adverse party stands in the way of dominion. My thesis is that dominionists will never be able to gain (much less retain) any “control” without utilizing a measure of FORCE. But in unvarnished Italian, this is “abuso di potere.” Such an approach destroys any kind of Christian witness, transforming the church into a toothed-and-fanged monster which revels in the gore of martyred saints.
Dominionists don’t seem to realize — or perhaps they just forget – that Christendom has ALREADY PLAYED the “let’s take over the world” game. For centuries, Christianity was the official religion of Western and Eastern Europe. The state was under the control of the Papal authorities; and human affairs were decided according to politico-religious expediency.
And what did the church do when she had attained this long-dreamt-of power? Did she become a burning lamp to enlighten the nations? Or did she end up darkening the clear light of the Gospel? Did she meekly attempt to win back Christians whom she considered heretics? Or did she turn the dogs loose on those who maintained opinions different from her own? I think history records the answer.
In the early fifth century, Pope Leo the Great, otherwise an excellent theologian (by Catholic standards) was preaching to his parishioners that dissenters may and should be persecuted:
“Dearly beloved, I entreat and admonish you loyally to inform us, if any of you know where they [the Manichaeans] dwell, where they teach, whose houses they frequent, and in whose company they take rest: because it is of little avail to any one that through the Holy Ghost’s protection he is not caught by them himself, if he takes no action when he knows that others are being caught…
“Display then a holy zeal of religious vigilance, and let all the faithful rise in one body against these savage enemies of their souls. For the merciful God has delivered a certain portion of our noxious foes into our hands in order that by revelation of the danger the utmost caution might be aroused. Let not what has been done suffice, but let us persevere in searching them out…” (Sermon XVII, 5, 6).
Isn’t this the very party-line we hear neo-Catholic pugs deliver in their diurnal “rants?” Isn’t this the same agenda that dominionists would follow? While standing under Christ’s banner, Leo set precedence for the stake and the rack. And anyone with a smattering of European history knows that his policy was that endorsed and followed by Papal Rome for so many years. What makes modern-day dominionists think that they would behave any more charitably toward those of diverse opinion? It has already been slyly suggested by some, that should dominionists ever gain power, all heretics will be subjected to capital punishment. For my Dispensational friends who read this, that means me and you!
That men so educated as Gary North and Gary DeMar, could be so naive as to suppose that human nature won’t simply repeat itself under similar circumstances, reveals how intoxicating the dominion mindset can be to those who have swallowed its elixir. I repeat, organized Christendom has already put the dominion idea to the test, on a MACRO level, and failed. This should tell us that such dominion is no part of God’s plan for the present age.
Only by the personal, visible, glorious return of Jesus Christ will dominion be given to the saints of the Most High (see Dan. 7). Only at the sounding of the seventh trumpet will the kingdoms of this world become those of God and of His Son Jesus Christ (Rev. 11: 15). Only the putting forth of resurrection power will be able to lift the curse that hangs over humanity (Romans 8: 19).
Yeah, yeah, I know all these verses were fulfilled in A.D. 70 — right? But if that is the case, one must wonder why the church has never gained dominion. If an earthly pre-millennial dominion is God’s plan for this age, why hasn’t it ever been realized? The fact that human history shouts against such a notion, gives us one formidable reason why we should be cautious in setting our agenda in such a direction as diverts our eyes from heavenly to earthly things.
”If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, Who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3: 1-4).
The Word Alone Is Sufficient!
[Note: The following is a response to comments generated by an article entitled "Why I Appeal To Historic Christianity," in which Roderick Edwards implies that Scripture should be read in light of church history. Respondents to his post include Dr. Kenneth Talbot (president of Whitefield Seminary) and a gentleman named "Lem." The original article appeared at Dee Dee Warren's Preterist Blog. ]
Rod/Lem/Dr. Talbot,
Well, this is a very interesting discussion. Hope no one minds if I chip in my “two cents.” Without taking sides, I would have to say that the balance of truth lies in the revealed Word of God, rather than in ecclesiastical history. This isn’t to say that all history should be discounted. I enjoy reading early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius. But when it comes to establishing the truth of any position, I must acknowledge the final touchstone to be the written Word.
Let me explain myself. I believe that “sovereign” is an attribute of God. But can any of God’s attributes be separated? Let us consider as many as our human limitations allow. God is not only SOVEREIGN, but He is FAITHFUL and TRUE. Because He is faithful, His providential care of His own is beyond question. That goes hand in hand with His sovereignty.
My presupposition (if I have any) is that God has left us His word, not to confound us, but to instruct us. He has also made promises that cannot be BROKEN without impugning His faithfulness. I am talking about the promises God made to Israel. Those promises will stand, no matter what man says.
But most importantly, God’s providence is manifested in the written Word, where He has given us all we need for our spiritual growth and nourishment. If in any respect the Word is insufficient to serve as supreme arbiter in all doctrinal controversies, then God’s faithfulness is placed in question. It would mean that He hasn’t given us enough. This presupposition leads to a “holy mother church” attitude which jacks the ‘visible church’ into apotheosis, while downplaying the true church, which is the body of Christ, the pleroma of Him that filleth all in all (Eph. 1: 23).
Frankly, I don’t believe in a “church militant.” The church is an organism — not an organization. Until we realize this monumental fact, we will fail to gain a proper apprehension of what Matthew 16: 18 means. The reason the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church is because the church is seated with Christ in heavenly places, far above all principality and power. Satan’s authority is in the air. Hence believers in Christ are seated above Satan! This denotes their PERFECT STANDING in Christ. It has nothing to do with membership in a visible organization or “club” — be it Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or what have you. It means being spiritually baptized into the body of Christ.
Paul’s prayer is that the knowledge of the saints will increase more and more (see Eph. 1: 17-18). He nowhere implies that anyone is vouchsafed “perfect gnosis.” Man may often err in respect to what they believe the Bible teaches. But the center of authority is not what man may think, but what God has revealed. Throughout the centuries, the issue has always been:
“God hath spoken. Will man listen?”
This is the one great question. I don’t believe that God has controlled the thoughts of His saints for 2,000 years. (He no more controls our thoughts than He controls our acts). He has left us His word. As the Jews had Moses and the prophets, so we have the 66 books. Since the close of the Jewish economy, the church (as a visible institution) has been largely self-regulating. In the absence of inspired apostles, we are left with the inspired Word. Once again, this bespeaks God’s providence. True, the visible church has often erred in matters of doctrine. But we fix these errors by going back to the fountain of all truth, which is the Word of God. There is the single supreme and authoritative touchstone by which all doctrines must be tested.
I believe God has given us the “talent” of saving faith (through the work of regeneration) but that growth in knowledge of His word must be by patient application and study, not to mention the spiritual illumination that the Holy Spirit gives. To me, illumination does not mean “ability to unlock riddles,” so much as the power to believe what God has revealed. When we receive His testimony, we set to our seal that God is true (John 3: 33). When we refuse to believe, we make Him a liar.
The reason Hyper-Preterism is wrong, is not because the fathers never taught it, but because it is frankly UNSCRIPTURAL. It sets aside the revealed theology of the New Testament, and substitutes for it the vain imaginations and philosophies of men. Although the creedo-historical argument may seem a powerful weapon at first, the Word will always be sufficient. In no case should evangelical Christians discount its authority. The Word of God is the only offensive weaponry God gives us! All the other equipment we need for spiritual warfare is defensive. See Ephesians 6: 13-17. This should tell us something.
So, in assessing these posts, my conclusion is that while church history is a wonderful help, the Word of God is still supreme. Man’s duty is not so much to “interpret” what God has written for our learning, but to BELIEVE all that He has revealed. Failure to believe God is the root cause of all the doctrinal division among Christians — past, present, or future.
Pax,
Brian
Review Of “The End Times Controversy” (Chapter 2)
This second chapter of “The End Times Controversy,” written by Dr. Thomas Ice, appears to be a sequel to the author’s article “What Is Preterism?” (chapter 1). The title of Chapter 2 is “The History of Preterism.” After having defined the parameters of Preterist theology, Dr. Ice goes on to give a history of the school of interpretation to which Preterism belongs. Here he makes a bold use of the creedo-historical argument, in an attempt to show that Preterist theology is a recent development.
“It is strange that there is not one shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these prophecies to have been fulfilled when Preterists say they were. You would think that if a large body of Bible prophecy were meant to relate to a specific generation, as Preterists contend, then the Holy Spirit would have moved in such a way so that first-century believers would have reached such an understanding” (pg. 37).
As Dr. Ice suggests, this first-century silence is a major problem for preterism, and one “which has thus far proved insurmountable.” While I agree with Dr. Ice’s assessment, in all fairness to Preterists I must say that the creedo-historical argument by itself proves nothing. It does not invalidate Preterism, for the center of authority is not church history, but the Scriptures! In turn, I would say the interpretive issue hinges on HOW the Scriptures are read. If the church had obeyed Paul’s precept to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2: 15), and held fast to a consistent literal hermeneutic, then the differences in doctrine among Christians would be far less marked than they are today. It is the adoption of a mystical/allegorical hermeneutic to which we owe the vast number of conflicting interpretive schemes of Bible prophecy.
Since, as Dr. Ice points out, Preterists base their past-fulfillment model on the contemporary expectation of the audience to which the prophecies were first addressed, the issue is not a historical one, so much as a hermeneutical one. It is even a canonical one. However, Dr. Ice does well in rummaging the annals of ecclesiastical history to find some trace of Preterists understanding in the early church.
Ice criticizes Dr. Kenneth Gentry for attempting to show a “nascent preterism in antiquity,” on the strength of two or three isolated sources. The desire to legitimize Preterism by showing some historical conformity, shows a weakness in Biblical support for their view. While Preterists sometimes boldly claim that their theology is the “historic faith of the church,” Dr. Ice shows that the system, even in its mildest forms, was virtually non-existent until the Middle Ages. And even then, the system never got off the ground until the Reformation-era.
Dr. Ice, quoting Henry Alford, claims that the Jesuit Alcazar was the first to propose a Preterist scheme with anything like systematic completeness. He sees Alcazar’s Preterism as having bleeded into Protestantism through the writings of Hugo Grotius, the liberal Dutch Arminian, and Henry Hammond, the father of English Biblical criticism. Dr. Ice observes that when Preterism was first being presented as a viable interpretive scheme, it gained but few adherents. He points out, that John Lightfoot, the Protestant commentator and Rabbinical scholar, while Preteristic in his views, was a historicist when it came to interpreting the Book of Revelation. Thus, even during the Reformation and post-Reformation times, the modern brand of Preterism (denominated by Ice as “Moderate Preterism“) was still in embryo.
Dr. Ice attributes the main influx of Preterist theology in recent times, and especially that form of Preterism which is sometimes called “Modern Preterism,” to the German rationalistic thinkers – scholars like Ewald, Lucke, and De Wette — who adopted Preterist theology as a means to dismiss away the supernatural elements of predictive prophecy. However, Ice contends that even the German rationalists held to a milder form of Apocalyptic interpretation than is espoused by the modern class of Preterist scholars.
According to Dr. Ice’s research, these extreme forms of Moderate Preterism took their rise from a school of German skeptics represented by such men as Firmin Abauzit, Johann Gottfried Herder, and Johann Eichhorn. Ice remarks:
“Preterists in our own day may be pleased about the historical evidence for the spread of Preterism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe. However, they cannot be happy that the foundational support for this growth in Preterism was based upon German rationalism and unbelief” (pg. 55).
Concerning the development of Preterism in the nineteenth century, Ice partly credits Samuel Lee for the spread of Preterism in England, and Moses Stuart for attempting to popularize the view in the U.S.
It should be mentioned here, that a large chunk of historical evidence concerning the growth of American Preterism was not available when Ice wrote his paper. Todd Dennis, curator of the Preterist Archive, has been able to trace the rise of “Full Preterism” to American Universalism which flourished during the first half of the 19th century. It is my opinion that this evidence “bridges” the gap between the development of more-or-less radical forms of Moderate Preterism and what is now called, in theological parlance, Hyper-Preterism.
Dr. Ice certifies that most of the impetus of today’s Preterism is fueled by the Reconstructionist movement. He cites Greg L. Bahnsen as one whose teaching influenced Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan to adopt a Preterist scheme. Although Dr. Ice gives a brief nod to Max King, the “Full Preterist” teacher from Warren, Ohio, it is clear that he is concerned with Preterism in its more academic manifestations.
In closing this article, Ice makes a pointed observation regarding hermeneutics. He writes:
“I believe that the spirit of our postmodern times, shaped by a dominant mysticism, has led some individuals to become more open to a less literal hermeneutic. This, in turn, has led some exegetical minds to see the supposed shadow of the Biblical text instead of the letter, or what is actually written. Today’s hermeneutical atmosphere is such that interpretive schemes such as preterism are made to seem feasible, when in the past the were dismissed as too farfetched. The zeitgeist of our day nudges the mind toward the allegorical and not the literal, the shadow instead of the clear, and the mystical rather than the physical” (pg. 65).
It occurs to me that this trend may be one of the primary reasons for the rise of Preterism in recent decades. Our society is certainly one in which popular culture is allowed to set definitions, while absolute values are jettisoned as being outmoded and effete. After reading Dr. Ice’s study I am more convinced than ever that Dispensationalism gives the Scriptural presentation of prophecy and eschatology. Of course, Dispensationalism is not, strictly speaking, the “historical faith of the church.” But the question is not whether it is “historical.” The question should be: Is it Biblical? As stated above, the issue between Preterism and Futurism is a hermeneutical one. And Dr. Ice addresses these concerns in his next study.
Review Of “The End Times Controversy” (Introduction)
One of the reasons I am reviewing “The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack,” by Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice, is because it is one of the more high-profile works to date which deals with the subject of Preterism. As such, it is easily accessible, and forms a good “starter kit” for Christians who want to know more about Preterism. In this work, a number of conservative scholars critique the theological system known as Preterism, which holds that the bulk of predictions concerning our Lord’s “coming again” were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Is this doctrine right or wrong?
The introduction to this work is written by Dr. Tim Lahaye, the well-known author and chairman of the Pre-Trib Research Center. Dr. Lahaye reveals the purpose of the book, which is “to show that Preterism is unscriptural and inconsistent, and to prove that the return of our Lord to this earth is yet future.” This sounds the keynote of the whole book.
To the average reader, it might seem strange that evangelical scholars should find themselves arguing over whether our Lord’s coming is past or future. However, this is the field of eschatological debate taken up in this monumental work. And Lahaye wastes no time in cutting to the chase.
In the first paragraph of his introduction, Lahaye uses the creedo-historical card. He writes:
“The Preterist notion that Christ returned spiritually in A.D. 70 would have come as a surprise to the early church fathers of the first three centuries, for they never mentioned that Christ’s second coming was past. They invariably referred to it as a future event” (pg. 7).
Of course, Lahaye is correct in his assessement. But this doesn’t necessarily make Preterism wrong. It only makes the system less probable in the face of countervailing evidence. It has been shrewdly observed, that Dispensationalism shows a similar lack of historicity. And that is partly correct. However, Dispensationalists do not rely on creedo-historical arguments to prove their case. Our theology is confirmed by the inspired Word of God, interpreted according to a consistent literal hermeneutic. We need no help from history. However, historical confirmation is always nice to have. And it is true that none of the early fathers understood eschatological passages as fulfilled in A.D. 70. But neither do Preterists believe this disproves their system.
As Dr. Lahaye observes, the real issue at stake is hermeneutical consistency. The main current of his introduction stresses the importance of the literal principle, and the folly of attempting to interpret prophetic passages according to a “spiritualized” hermeneutic.
One of the key points that the author brings forward is the seldom-seen correspondence between Acts 1: 11 and Matthew 24: 30. The Preterists often look for allegorical “cloud comings” in the Old Testament, and use these to support the notion of a figurative coming of Christ in A.D. 70.
However, Lahaye brings to the table a New Testament text which suggestively refutes the notion that Christ’s “coming in clouds” means anything other than a literal, physical, glorious return to earth. He also cites Revelation 1: 7 as a parallel passage. The author sees this passage in a globalistic, rather than a nationalistic, context. Although I disagree with Lahaye’s particular interpretation of this verse, I fully concur with him that its fulfillment is still future.
Moving on, the author asks how we can possibly be living in the kingdom age, when so much violence, persecution, and affliction still prevails on earth. Lahaye observes:
“No kingdom of righteousness will permit crime, pornography in print or on the internet, teach godless socialism in our public schools, or denigrate God the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit.” (pg. 10).
I appreciate this remark, for it outlines how Dispensationalists understand the oft-disputed concept of “Dominion.” No body of men, however sanctified, can ever bring in such a kingdom as is prophesied in the Word of God. That prerogative belongs to the “King of Kings” alone. However, when the kingdom IS brought in, men will not need to argue about whether it is here or not!
Lahaye then poses a number of “Questions Which Preterists Must Answer.” These questions are 17 in number, and are intended to showcase the inconsistencies of an allegorical interpretive method.
One salient remark is that Nero could not have fulfilled the role of Antichrist, in accordance with the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2: 8, inasmuch as he committed suicide in A.D. 68 – two years before Christ allegedly returned. This is a keen observation. And the explanations offered by Preterists in the past have only demonstrated the weakness of their system. [note: J. Stuart Russell, after arguing meticulously over the importance of the "timing element," labels this inconsistency a mere "anachronism," such as must be found in "Oriental poetry."].
Dr. Lahaye also makes references to the prophecies of Zechariah, which have proven a “burdensome stone” for many of the Preterist persuasion. How can Preterists reasonably allege that passages such as Zechariah 12: 9-10 and 14: 1-4 were fulfilled in A.D. 70?
Of course, Lahaye does not deal with the fact that Preterists see no necessity for interpreting prophetic passages literally, as he does. According to most Preterists, there is a perfectly legitimate explanation for these texts, which can be understood on historical grounds alone.
However, in all fairness Dr. Lahaye does not presume to enter into the mind of the Preterist interpreter. He merely paints, in sweeping strokes, a general sketch of their theology, by way of contrast with his own, and leaves it to others to fill in the details. In other words, Lahaye’s introduction is merely an introduction. It is an appetizer, and not a main dish. To get the meat and potatoes, the reader must move on to the first chapter.
New Statement On Sola Scriptura
In this 11-minute audio file, I clarify my position on the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” Is Scripture alone sufficient in determining matters of Christian faith and practice? Or are the Scriptures to be supplemented with creeds, confessions, and other fallible human writings? My position is that the Bible should be the center of authority for every Christian, and that, while human writings may be helpful, they are of no value whatsoever when they do not agree with the teachings of Scripture.
Listen now: statement-on-sola-scriptura
Conversation With Roderick Edwards
In this 40-minute podcast, Brian Simmons interviews Roderick Edwards of The Kingdom Come. The topic of discussion involves the current developments within the Hyper-Preterist movement. Roderick explains where the movement is headed, as it merges with liberalism and open infidelity, and offers some behind-the-scenes info on the upcoming “Mathison Response.” He also gives valuable insight on some of the more radical implications of Hyper-Preterist theology. Hyper-Preterism is a heresy which teaches that the second advent of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment occurred during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Listen now: Conversation With Roderick Edwards
