Archive for partial preterism
Scofield Ministries Answers The “95 Theses Against Dispensationalism”
“Dispensationalists believe that all things bring glory to the Father, not simply the work of salvation. God the Father of course receives glory (1) for our salvation, as well as the Son (John 13:31). “Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in Him” (vv. 31-32). The context has to do with the work of salvation Christ is about to initiate for the world.
“It is also true that (2) “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psa. 19:1). (3) Christ as the messianic King will also receive the glory due Him (Psa. 24:7-10), as well as (3) the Kingdom itself is seen as glorious (Psa. 145:11-13). And with the destruction of Gog and Magog, (4) the Lord will receive glory among all the nations (Ezek. 39:21). I could go on and on demonstrating that God receives glory in so many things, not simply in salvation.”– Dr. Mal Couch
A team of Bible teachers answers the published 95 objections to dispensationalism. The donation is $35 for over fifteen CDs, plus an attractive carrying case. Send the donation to: Scofield Ministries, 120 CR 3222, Clifton, TX. 76634.
How To Refute Preterism: Part 3: “The Forerunner of The Kingdom”
In Episode 3 of this new audio series, Brian Simmons continues to demonstrate the fundamental errors of Preterist theology. This time he takes a closer look at the necessary condition of Jewish national repentance, which will alone bring about the awaited parousia and consequent fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. Also, the very important (and often overlooked) ministry of John the Baptist is discussed, in its particular bearing on the second coming of Christ and ”day of the Lord.”
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/forerunner.mp3
How To Refute Preterism: Part 2: “A-N Spells Conditional”
Brian Simmons has launched a brand new audio series entitled “How To Refute Preterism.” In this second episode, he talks about the use of conditional clauses in Preterist time-texts — placing particular emphasis on Matthew 10: 23, 16: 28, 23: 39, and 24: 34. This podcast will be found essential to a right understanding of what Christ and His inspired apostles meant when they placed the parousia in a first-century context.
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fouruntils.mp3
How To Refute Preterism: Part 1: “Smash Preterism Now”
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
Should Preterists Keep The Lord’s Supper?
Recently I was reading some Preterist material in which the author insisted that the Lord’s Supper is still to be kept by Christians today. This avowal seemed all the more strange, in that Preterists teach that the first century church was waiting, not for the second advent, but for the judgment of the Jewish nation, at which time Israel would be divorced, and the church married. That’s according to themselves, of course.
Moreover, Preterists claim that Christ’s “coming” happened in A.D. 70. Therefore, how then can any Preterist reasonably hold that the church which has been living in the “age to come” and “kingdom of God” for 2,000 years is required to keep an observance that can only have pointed to the nearer (and not the more distant) event? The enigma baffles solution.
In his book entitled “Days of Vengeance,” author David Chilton argues for a superstitious veneration of the eucharist. “The greatest privilege of the church,” he writes, “is weekly participation in the eucharistic meal, the marriage supper of the Lamb. [...] The eucharist is at the center of our life, and all our life flows out of this central liturgy. The “shape” of the eucharistic liturgy, therefore, gives shape to the rest of life, the daily liturgy we follow as we pursue our calling to exercise dominion over the earth” (pg. 476, 478).
Frankly, I find it amazing how any Preterist can hold the view that a pre-parousia ritual observance, which only looks forward to the Lord’s coming to establish the Kingdom, should still be in force AFTER the Lord has returned and the kingdom been established! One would think that if the substance arrived 2,000 years ago, the shadows have passed away. That’s just being honest.
Really, what were the first-century saints waiting for? Why were they keeping the Lord’s supper? It is evident that the Lord’s supper looks forward to the establishment of the New Covenant. This is to take place at Christ’s parousia, which Preterists place in A.D. 70. The first century saints were taught by Paul to expect the resurrection to take place at the parousia (1 Cor. 15: 23). This is what they were waiting for; and this same parousia would mark the APOCALYPSE (unveiling) of Jesus Christ, and the bringing in of the promised Kingdom.
“So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the apocalypse of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1: 7).
Were the Corinthian saints waiting for two different events separated by (as Chilton contends) 36,000 years? No! They were waiting for something that was to take place in their own lifetimes. And the unveiling of Jesus Christ would occur at His parousia.
It is well to note that the same word “Apocalupsis” appears in Revelation 1: 1; the concept of a returning Redeemer forming the subject matter of this last book in the New Testament canon. Only one unveiling is mentioned – not two.
Preterists always assert that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled (except for certain portions of the last three chapters) in A.D. 70. In such case, however, the apocalypse was realized in A.D. 70. And if that is true, the parousia was also realized, along with the awaited resurrection.
“But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His parousia” (1 Cor. 15: 23).
If the resurrection occurs in connection with the PAROUSIA of Christ, then according to Preterist logic, it already took place when the temple caught fire on August 9th, A.D. 70. Of course, Preterists cannot explain how all men were eternally judged on that momentous day (though Josephus records that 97,000 Jews got led into captivity, escaping scot free from the lake of fire). But that is just a collateral observation.
Anyhow, the expectation of the first-century church was focused on something that would take place in their own lifetime. Paul gives no indication that their expectation was focused on an event that had no particular relevance to themselves, and which is still future to us! This is the Achilles’ Heel of Preterism.
In order to be consistent, Preterists must claim that the eschatological expectations of the first-century church were fully realized by the events which took place in A.D. 70. If first-century expectation was only “partially” satisfied, then Preterism’s doctrine of “audience relevance” (in which the part is made equivalent to the whole) falls to the ground, since there is no limit to the number of eschatological events that may be separated from the main package and jacked into the future.
Preterists claim that first-century expectations regarding the “COMING” of Christ (as mentioned in Matt. 24: 3) were fulfilled in A.D. 70. But expectations regarding the resurrection remain unfulfilled. Nevertheless, this notion is belied by the fact that, according to the inspired New Testament writers, the resurrection is to occur at the coming of Christ; and this coming is consistently spoken of as something which might happen in the lifetime of the first-century church (1 Cor. 15: 51; 1 Thess. 4: 15-17).
Preterists, in spiritualizing eschatological passages that Dispensationalists view as future, and placing their fulfillment in A.D. 70, adopt a destructive sort of reasoning which often leaves them impaled on their own quills.
It is clear that the first-century saints kept the Lord’s supper in view of a SOON coming of Christ, and not something which was 36,000 years distant. Therefore, Preterists who say that Christians must keep the Lord’s Supper are not only mistaken in their application of that doctrine to today’s church, but tactitly confess that the expectations of the first-century church were never realized in A.D. 70. This invalidates their whole basis for accepting Preterism, revealing them as operational (or rather, inconsistent) futurists.
[Note: This is not a Preterist article, but is a study written from an Acts 28 Dispensational perspective. The author believes that we are living in a parenthetical administration which falls between the climax of Israel's national rejection in Acts 28, and their ultimate "renewal," when the last 7 years of the age (as outlined in the Apocalypse) will take up their course, and bring all things to a glorious finale. During this present interval, Israel's covenants are in abeyance, as are the sacraments related to these covenants. The church of this dispensation has no connection with Israel's hope, but receives its sphere of blessing "IN CHRIST" (Eph. 1: 3)].
The Covenant Creation Fiasco
Well, I said that I wasn’t going to write anything else about the Hyper-Preterist movement. However, because things have gotten so out of hand among them, an update is needed to inform Christians as to what is going on. It’s too bad that both of the rival factions involved in this controversy have restricted access to their sites, so it’s not easy getting the facts. However, here they are.
For those who don’t know, Covenant Creationism is a view which teaches that the creation account of Genesis 1 is purely symbolic in nature. For a while I’ve been saying that this is the logical corollary of claiming that the destruction mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is “figurative” or “covenantal” in nature — something that nearly all Preterists teach. Since the heavens and earth of Revelation 21 are antitype to the creation of Genesis 1: 1, it is natural to conclude that if one is non-literal, the other is non-literal as well.
This view of Covenant Creationism was invented by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn. They wrote a book called “Beyond Creation Science,” which has been lauded on various Hyper-Preterist forums – especially on Planet Preterist, an extremely liberal site run by Virgil Vaduva, an associate of emergent leader Brian McLaren. Although Martin is the brains behind the book, Vaughn is a professional scientist with a Ph.D., and so his name gives luster and respectability to their joint effort.
While for the past year or so, Hyper-Preterists within the quasi-conservative faction have tried to fence off these liberal views, and prevent them from infiltrating their fold, Covenant Creationism has now become a formidable problem which won’t go away. A furious battle is therefore being waged between the members of two rival “social networks.” The conservative network, Sovereign Grace Preterism, is run by Jason Bradfield — otherwise known as “King Neb” (short for Nebuchadnezzar). The more liberal network (known as “Death Is Defeated”) is administered by John Scargy, a weird individual who operates under different names. The ground of controversy is, ironically, whether the creation account is literal, or figurative.
Strange though it sounds, Martin & Vaughn have purchased some credibility by affirming that the early church taught some forms of their doctrine, and that Jewish apocalyptic literature contains references to certain of the concepts they put forward. The conservatives are now crying over this use of “extra Biblical” sources by the Covenant Creationists. And yet this is exactly what they have been doing for years, shamelessly using Josephus and other non-inspired writers as “authorities” for their fanciful interpretations. So they can’t really complain. They are merely getting a dose of their own medicine.
This reminds me that Preterism is a movement now collapsing on several fronts, through radicalization of its core teachings. The Partial preterists are being eaten away from within by Hyper-Preterists, while the Hyper-Preterists are eating away at themselves. Although it is a mere application, and not an interpretation, a verse from the prophet Isaiah comes to mind:
“And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah” (Isaiah 9: 20).
Of course, “Judah” may be used to represent Biblical Christianity in general; while Ephraim and Manasseh can stand for partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Or, they can just as aptly represent the two factions within Hyper-Preterism — “Judah” standing for Christians who take their Bibles literally. While these are the common enemy, the Preterists have no peace among themselves, but are ever at war, always working to destroy one another. What accounts for such hatred? The root cause is, departure from the teachings of Biblical Christianity. The Bible doesn’t say Jesus already came, but that He will come! Until these prophecies are actually fulfilled (with a literality that matches realization of those regarding His first advent), no man has a warrant for throwing them into the past — regardless of how many proof-texts he may imagine he has on his side.
One would think that the conservative Hyper-Preterists, seeing the inconsistency, and reacting against the absolute anarchy of the Covenant Creationist view, would wake up and realize that the futurist interpretation is correct after all. But it seems they are as blind as ever. Does Jesus Christ have to be crucified afresh for these people to acknowledge (or rather, remember) that Christ purchased the creation with His blood, and that He will one day return to redeem it? Apparently nothing less than a miracle will make them see the light.
Regardless, it is clear by this time that Covenant Creationism represents the “tomorrow” of the Hyper-Preterist movement. It is really a more consistent form of what conservative H.P.’s already teach regarding the creation motif.
Of course, someone like myself has to ask how far one can push even THESE doctrines. Well, if history is really written in symbols, then the next logical step would be to view the Gospels as pure allegory, and not history. All it would take is some smarty-pants liberal to write a book affirming that the story of Jesus is merely a poetic allegory of “man’s need for redemption, which theme runs throughout all the great religions of the world.” If such a thought sends icicles up your spine, just remember that the Bible predicts this (or something like it) as the culmination of that ”apostasia” which will precede Christ’s return to earth.
“…Who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2: 1).
Unless you are a religious humanist, or are living in a marine bunker, you won’t deny that things HAVE been getting worse and worse for Christianity. However, if it’s any consolation, just remember that things are getting bad even for cults like Hyper-Preterism. Whether the whole program will crash tomorrow, we don’t know. But those who in the face of all obstacles, believe what God tells them, and patiently wait for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, keeping their focus on Him alone, will win in the end.
