Well, then I don't know any preterists around here and I suspect neither do you.
Posted on 04/10/2007 10:07:35 AM PDT by xzins
Sorry, but that IS the definition of preterism.
Others go out of their way to back away from it, because they realize how heretical it is.
Like being proud to call yourself a semi-pelagian, even though real pelagianism is so unworthy of the gospel of grace.
Better to warn about the heresy of preterism first.
So many are unfamiliar with it, and are seduced by virtue of their ignorance regarding the destination to which they are being led.
Have you ever heard of the term “guilt by association”? That was the author’s tactic in this hit piece.
Well, then I don't know any preterists around here and I suspect neither do you.
But they DO use the label of PRETERIST with a modifier.
Besides that, partial PRETERISM is little improvement. As pointed out, preterism’s addiction to spiritualizing things is both a danger and is itself destructive of Christian hope.
Using a debater's trick, MacArthur begins his analysis of nondispensational eschatology by assessing full-preterism. Full-preterists believe that all the New Testament prophetic passages were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Thus, there is no future bodily return of Christ. The resurrection is also given a non-traditional interpretation. Of course, I have no problem with someone debating the merits of full-preterism or partial preterism. R.C. Sproul engages in a debate with full preterism in his The Last Days According to Jesus, and Ken Gentry has written extensively on the subject. I've had numerous discussion with full-preterist writers and have voiced my dissatisfaction with a number of their interpretations. While MacArthur admits that partial preterism is not heresy, he goes on to write that "it is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by [partial] preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error." The old slippery-slope argument.Gary DeMar in Defending the Indefensible
Tut, tut, tut. And you a man of the cloth. You are beginning to act like a lawyer. Let’s see now, from all the threads on eschatology and systems of theology.
All Dispensationalists are Dispensational.
All Pre Millennials are Pre Millennial.
All Pre tribs are Pre trib.
All Post Millennials are Post Millennial.
All Amillennials are Amillennial.
All Preterists are Preterist.
This is a typical ploy of deception -- create something new and label it with the name of your opponent.
Sort of like saying Arminius was a Calvinist.
Postmillenialism is simply a belief that the spread of the Gospel and the fulfillment of the Biblically-mandated Great Commission will enrich our society and profit all who hear it.
It sure can't hurt.
Christian Reconstructionism simply says the Great Commission is our responsibility to perform, by the grace of God.
And before the world become so skittish and politically-correct, most Christians actually believed in both presuppositions.
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." -- Matthew 28:18020"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." -- Isaiah 55:11
Why do we really fight in Iraq, x? Yes, it's for U.S. defense and protection and stability.
But don't you also believe that the spread of Christianity to a Muslim nation will truly benefit that region?
Don't you also believe that all those Bibles being smuggled into China will truly benefit that continent and enrich the lives of all who hear the word of God?
If you are going to rely on faulty logic like Engelsma and MacArthur, and if you are not going to believe what people tell you to be true and take it on face value as honest, it only demonstrates that your approach to interpreting the Word of God may be suspect as well.
???
There is nothing faulty about pointing out what preterism is any more than there’s something faulty about pointing out what pelagianism is.
And, then there’s the argument of “poisoned fruit.”
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
As the Professor pointed out in “A Defense to Reformed Amillinialism”, Post-millinialism preaches a coming ‘golden age’ rather than warning saints of the anti-christ.
What is a pelagian?
What is a semi-pelagian?
Extremely good point. You are correct.
But don't label it as "partial preterism" because it isn't.
And contrary to what blue-duncan was trying to tell you, the difference between partial and full preterism is clear and simple, unlike the many, varied and confusing beliefs listed under the heading of dispensationalism.
Engelsma knows this, which makes his tome far less important than it could be.
Amen. If this is the best they can do to refute the truth, then the truth stands strong.
The entire book is free online at the above link.
See #32
Orthodox preterism did not "fall from the tree" of the Hymenaen heresy. You are engaging in faulty logic and debaters tricks. I suspect the reason why is that you have no arguments of your own, so, like Engelsma and MacArthur, you resort to clouding the issues by insisting black is white and up is down.
See #4
This is interesting.
Each of you give a list of those prophecies that are already fulfilled?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.