Timely Questions about Preterismand its Reconstruction Ally

from "The Standard Bearer" ^ | Prof. David Engelsma

[xzins]

Although this author is amillennial, he raises some interesting concerns about preterism and reconstruction.

[topcat54]

Although this author is amillennial, ..

So we already know he spiritualizes *everything*. Right? Why should his perspective be trusted?

Or is this a case of "any enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

[Alex Murphy]

Although this author is amillennial, he raises some interesting concerns about preterism and reconstruction.

Besides attempting to paint all postmillennialists as consistent, i.e. heretical "full" preterists who deny a literal, future Second Coming - despite all claims to the contrary - what other concerns does he raise?

Englesma, whom I normally have great respect for, muddles the water by falsely charging Reconstructionists with a belief that "Christ would come in the second coming within a few years, that is, in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70", Englesma IMO is deliberately confusing his opponents' view of His "coming in the clouds" (the judgment of Israel) with His Second Coming, i.e. His literal return. No Reconstructionist work I have ever read has ever proposed that the two "comings" are the same event.

[xzins]

Preterism destroys the Christian hope: the soon-coming of Jesus Christ our Lord in the body to raise our bodies from the dead and to take us unto Himself in the perfected fellowship of the covenant. With the scoffers of II Peter 3:4, it asks, "Where is the promise of his coming?" With Hymenaeus and Philetus, it says that "the resurrection is past already" (II Tim. 2:18).

It is rejection of the Christian hope with a vengeance. Nothing of our hope is left.

As I said, it raises some excellent concerns.

[topcat54]

Besides attempting to paint all postmillennialists as consistent, i.e. heretical "full" preterists who deny a literal, future Second Coming - despite all claims to the contrary - what other concerns does he raise?

Perhaps now we know where our friends gets it from. Reading people who paint with a broad brush when they write about other people.

[xzins]

As mentioned to TC on a different thread, when one is so focused on building the kingdom here on earth, it gets easier and easier to “spiritualize” the return of Christ, and especially since everything else has already been spiritualized.

I would say that post-millennialism is a great danger to post-mil Christians.

That aside, though, I can certainly see how preterism is a HERETICAL danger that will easily betray post-mil Christians.

[topcat54]

As I said, it raises some excellent concerns.

Only if you are close-minded regarding the truth.

[Tax-chick]

“Its”

[opus86]

Bump for later

[xzins]

where??

[Tax-chick]

Title and article header, should be “its Reconstruction Ally.”

(Sorry to pick, but it’s a school day :-).

[Alex Murphy]

The problem here, Xzins, is that there are no legitimate concerns raised by the Englesma article. Badly misrepresenting an opponent in order to score debate points, i.e. charging heresy where none exists, is the only "legitimate concern" that I see needing to be raised here.

[xzins]

I don’t see how my being alerted to concerns that I’ve been unaware of to this date is an indication of close-mindedness.

I’d think it would say the opposite.

And, not being an amillennialist, this was a difficult article for me to post. But the concerns about preterism destroying Christian hope are legitimate.

[topcat54]

Preterism holds that the time of Jesus' second coming (Greek: parousia) was A.D. 70. (Engelsma)

Do you know anyone on this board or in person who holds to this view?

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are a few. In fact, the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Report and orthodox preterist Ken Gentry have written volumes againt this form of preterism, which they call the Hymenaen heresy.

Engelsma knows this, which makes his tome far less important than it could be.

[xzins]

I noticed another mistake in the article itself, but I don’t remember where.

[xzins]

Christian hope being destroyed was Engelsma’s concern, and I agree. It is certainly a danger.

[Tax-chick]

I picked up a couple of mistakes just on a quick reading, but the error in the title was the most obvious.

[topcat54]

But the concerns about preterism destroying Christian hope are legitimate.

But you are tilting at windmills in this forum. There are no Hymenaen-style preterists around (that I'm aware of).

Are you getting it yet?

[Alex Murphy]

Christian hope being destroyed was Engelsma’s concern, and I agree. It is certainly a danger.

Let me know when it becomes a reality.