Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
Peter, of course, wrote his letter near 65AD. Five years away from the preterist parousia, Peter did not even hint at the soon return of Jesus.
Actually, the opposite. Peter said,
2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Good stuff. Thanks.
You’re welcome.
Typical hit piece. John ought to pay a little more attention to people within his own church (PCA) as there are several partial preterists therein (particularly R.C. Sproul) who ARE focused on church ministry, spreading the gospel and building up the church, and spend relatively little time on eschatology.
Not to mention the fact that the author plays the guilt-by-association game with partial preterists. Every partial preterist I know would without reservation reject full preterism as heresy specifically because of some of the above points (particularly the denial of a future bodily resurrection).
bttt
This Reformed pastor (PCA) with a solid reformed scholastic background clearly disagrees with preterism.
True, but the fact is he is ordained in a denomination with many orthodox preterists (RC Sproul, a documented preterist, is also PCA) and the matter has never been an issue to my knowledge, certainly not at the General Assembly level.
He would have a hard time making his personal views stick within the PCA, which, at least at this point, understands Reformed theology better than you.
BTW, the PCA is also a denomination that regularly denies ordination to dispensationalists like yourself because of your biblically inconsistent views.
You're clearly fishing in uncharted waters.
Run out of Bible answers?
Preterism is a hermeneutic method used to interpret eschatological (end-times) passages in both the Old an the New Testaments. The orthodox preterist view sees nearly all events (excluding the Second Advent [emph. added]) described in the book of Revelation and the 24th chapter of Matthew as already having been fulfilled by A.D. 70. The preterist position may be held by those who hold to the amillennial, postmillennial, or the historic premillennial positions on the Second Coming of Christ.***
CRI considers the preterist position to be within the pale of orthodox Christianity [emph. added], since it affirms all of the essential eschatological doctrines of the historic Christian faith, which includes:
The Bodily Return of our Lord Jesus Christ in Glory for His Church The Bodily Resurrection of Believers & Unbelievers
The Universal Judgment of the Living and the Dead
The Reception of Eternal Life for the Elect, and the Allotment of Eternal Condemnation for Unbelievers The Eternality of Christ's Righteous Kingdom
A vital distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist and "hyper-preterist" [emph. added] views pertaining to eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, "hyper-preterists" go so far as to insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection has already occurred. This position is no part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith .(emphasis added)-- Taken from a CRI letter dated May 19, 1999 authored by CRI representative Thad Williams
Among other things, preterism’s acceptance of a bodily resurrection is questioned.
Questioned by whom? You? You can't even define your terms.
See point 3 above.
If you can read.
I am a fully recovered former premillennial, pretribulational, futurist. It is now amazing to me how easily I see the wealth of passages that utterly defeat those earlier much-cherished eschatological doctrines. That being said, I do not believe for a second that other people hold them because they are unintelligent and do not love the Word of God because I once zealously held them myself….. but I do remember that once I started taking a look at certain passages without the grid I was so carefully taught, the scaffolding just fell away. Now while I didn't receive the particular insight that I am now going to share in those earlier days, I am hoping that this may be used to open the eyes of others to consider the possibility that the idea that Jesus is going to return to set up a thousand year Kingdom and rule from a physical throne in physical Jerusalem is simply not Biblical...
Careful, or the R-M might slap you hand.
Since the author equivocates on the definition of "preterism" that he himself offers, the question is against whom does the charge apply?
Certainly not the "partial preterist" by his own statement, "Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead".
And he makes it clear that it is only the "full preterist" variety that is not orthodox.
So the question becomes, "where's the beef?"
BTW, this is a very poor article for the president of a bible college to be authoring. Clearly the PCA does not have its best and brightest out front on this matter. But why should they, since preterism in the orthodox variety is not an issue for the PCA. Sounds more like a hobby horse for this fellow.
Specious statements such as, "I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel ..." is just plain silly, until the author has polled the entire universe of preterists and objectively documented their convictions in this area.
Either this author doesn't know that or he's purposely trying to confuse the discussion.
Imagine that. (Now I know how blue-duncan felt when he said something about dispensationalism mucking up historic premillennialism.)
Christ reigns today from the right hand of God the Father. Otherwise, the resurrection itself is relegated to just another moment in history when, if fact, it is the pinnacle by and for and through which everything was created.
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent" -- Matthew 27:51
Not only silly, but off by 180 degrees since most orthodox (partial) preterists are postmillennial and believe that the Great Commission must and will be fulfilled by the God-ordained spread of the Gospel and all the confidence and glory with which it comes.
He clearly said, “I have yet to meet....”
Reading, reading,.....
And here I thought he said, “I have yet to meet...”
The reject only the name “full preterist.” They modify the doctrine to be a secret, invisible coming of Christ in 70AD.
Find me one apostle or one early Christian who says that Christ returned in 70 AD.
Just one.
You’d think such a thing would’ve caused a stir.
So far as the author’s observation about preterists and evangelism, he is clearly referring to their tendency to proclaim “preterism” rather than the gospel.
Hardly helpful. He could very well have meant, “I have yet to meet a Preterist.”
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.