# Full Preterists



## calgal (Oct 13, 2007)

Can anyone give me more information on this heresy? TIA!


----------



## 2 Tim 4:2 (Oct 13, 2007)

A Scriptural Critique of Full Preterism In Light of Matthew 24 and Related Passages

Full Preterist Studies

FULL PRETERISM : DENYING THE OBVIOUS

PARTIAL PRETERISM VS. FULL PRETERISM

Refuting Full Preterism


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

The volume edited by Keith Mathison When Shall These Things Be? (published by P&R).


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2007)

old post by a friend of mine

1. When you hurt your back playing golf and your buddies look at you and say, "you got a bum glorified body, didn't you?," you might be a hyper-preterist.

2. If after lusting after a Playboy Playmate you go and teach that we were definitively sanctified in 70 AD, you might be a hyper-preterist.

3. If you say you take the time texts seriously but you don't hold that 1 John was written at 11:00 p.m. on 69 AD since it says, "we know it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18), you might be a hyper-preterist.

4. If you say that people weren't regenerate until 70 AD but it was already not yet, and then you read passages which speak of the saints loving God and his law (which the unregenerate cannot do), you might be a hyper-preterist.

5. If you think 70 AD was the most important event in history, rather than the cross, you might be a hyper-preterist.

6. If you have Gnostic tendencies, you might be a hyper-preterist.

7. If you've never read Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Murray, Van Til, Vos, et al, you might be a hyper-preterist.

8. If you've read them, and the every other Christian position on the resurrection and the second advent, and you say they're all wrong and you're all correct, you might be a hyper-preterist.

9. If you think you're reformed and hold that God has elected a certain number of people to everlasting life, but yet you think the earth will last forever with people entering into the city, for eternity, you might be a hyper-preterist.

10. If you have a blank look on your face, with glassy eyes, you might be a hyper-preterist.

11. If your family members need to hire people to "get you out," you might be a hyper-preterist.

12. If your position leads to the position that Jesus needed regeneration since he was resurrected, you might be a hyper-preterist.

13. If you get kicked out of every church you go to, you might be a hyper-preterist.

14. If your creed is that you have no creed, you might be a hyper-preterist.

15. If you say that "the end of ALL things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7) means ALL things, but the fulfillment of EVERY vision without delay (Ez. 12:21-28) does not mean EVERY vision, you might be a hyper-preterist.

16. If your teaching is gangrenous, you might be a hyper-preterist.

17. If you still take the lord's supper even though one reason it was to be taken was in order to "proclaim His death until He comes," you might be a hyper-preterist.

18. If you constantly bombard people with e-mails, you might be a hyper-preterist.

19. If your previous theological bents have been other heretical positions (i.e., the Church of Christ's), you might be a hyper-preterist.

20. If you make yourself feel better by saying, at one time people thought the reformers were heretics, you might be a hyper-preterist.

21. If your two favorite sayings are: (1)Reformed and always reforming and (2) sola scriptura, even though you misrepresent what those mean, you might be a hyper-preterist.

22. If you live in Florida, you might be a hyper-preterist.

23. If you're a fan of "New Covenant Theology," you might be a hyper-preterist.

24. If you think Jesus will kick it with Enoch and Elijah for eternity while the rest of us will float around as disembodied spirits after we phsyically die, you might be a hyper-preterist.

25. If you think that we'll still sin after we die since definitive sanctification has already occurred, you might be a hyper-preterist.

26. If you think that God will live in eternity with active sinners, forever, you might be a hyper-preterist.

27. If you have no education, you might be a hyper-preterist.

28. If you only focus on eschatology, you might be a hyper-preterist.

29. If you can't get off the milk and chew some meat, you might be a hyper-preterist.

30. If you deny Christ's full work of redemption (e.g., the phsyical He made good also needs redemption), you might be a hyper-preterist.

31. If you think that Don Preston "is the man" because he rambles off basic two-premiss syllogisms, you might be a hyper-preterist.

32. If this is the new heavens and earth and you have your glorified body, and upon realizing this if you're not depressed and feeling cheated, you might be a hyper-preterist.

33. If you've had to define what a Christian is and this definition lets just about any wacko into the camp, you might be a hyper-preterist.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> old post by a friend of mine
> 
> 1. When you hurt your back playing golf and your buddies look at you and say, "you got a bum glorified body, didn't you?," you might be a hyper-preterist.
> 
> ...



This is a classic!


----------



## CDM (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > old post by a friend of mine
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

> 13. If you get kicked out of every church you go to, you might be a hyper-preterist.



Interestingly, in the volume I recommended above, Doug Wilson makes the incredible suggestion that hyper-preterists should be tolerated as members in orthodox churches as long as they don't spread their ideas.


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2007)

I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)



I would tend to agree with you brother. However, in the case of full preterism, most regard it as heresy and not error. in my opinion, anyone who denies the bodily ressurection of the dead must either recant or be excommunicated.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Nov 13, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> 33. If you've had to define what a Christian is and this definition lets just about any wacko into the camp, you might be a hyper-preterist.



I find it interesting that those who hold to hyper-preterism for any length of time seem drawn, at some point, to consider Universalism. Perhaps it is but a short step. And the number of hyper-preterists who have gone ahead and taken that step seems to be dramatically increasing of late.


----------



## caddy (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > old post by a friend of mine
> ...


 

...that's good stuff there!


----------



## caddy (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, *as I assume Rich must do now*)


 
Good point....


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)



Ken

This is not just an error, it is a damnable heresy as it denies the resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15). It is not a matter of policing people's thoughts as such, but of keeping those without a credible profession of faith out of church membership - for the good of their own soul.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)
> ...



 Well said brother.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2007)

"You might be, if..." was from an old Paul Manata blog post.


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)
> ...



I think you might be painting them with a bit of a broad brush here. I think hyper-preterists would argue that it is a bodily resurrection, but looks a little different than our current bodies. They would point out that the resurrected Jesus is able to appear and disappear and walk through walls etc. (I am not defending their argument)

BTW, I do not think we should refer to them as 'full-preterists'. This plays right into their hands because it makes them sound mainstream and 'consistant', whereas the orthodox preterist is 'inconsistent'. I think we should refer to them as 'hyper' because they 'go beyond' orthodoxy.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 13, 2007)

Anyone familiar with Mike Krall? He has some good links on his page, but is he hyper preterist? Very solid on soteriology...


----------



## Poimen (Nov 13, 2007)

Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?



Your physical body rots in the earth never to rise and you recieve a spirtual body for heaven which is the eternal state.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?
> ...



 

At least they are being consistent. Is there such a thing as the new heavens and new earth? Do we reign on earth as well as heaven?


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...




Heaven is the new heavens and new earth to them. As far as I understand them there is no kind of millennium here on earth, beit pre, post or amill. Also the judgment took place in AD 70. This world, along with sin, death and rebellion against God continues for eternity.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 13, 2007)

> This world, along with sin, death and rebellion against God continues for eternity.



Well that is what I thought... very strange.

Thanks for the summary. I guess I will have to study this issue a little more but I have to say that I have never encountered it in my ministry either directly or indirectly.


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Blueridge Baptist said:
> ...



Actually they are postmillenialists in that they believe the millennium was the period of time between Christ and AD 70. 

I don't think this is what they all believe. Like preterism and dispensationalism, hyper-preterism is still a rather new system and is in flux. At least that has been my experience.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...




Paul considered Hymenaeus and Philetus as having made ship-wreck of men's faith by saying the resurrection is past ( 2 Tim. 2:17-18 ). A wrong view of the resurrection is a serious matter to Paul.

16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 

19Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

20Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

So it actually is not a new system technically.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 13, 2007)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Heaven is the new heavens and new earth to them. As far as I understand them there is no kind of millennium here on earth, beit pre, post or amill. Also the judgment took place in AD 70. This world, along with sin, death and rebellion against God continues for eternity.



so...this present Earth is what, Hell?


----------



## KMK (Nov 13, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Blueridge Baptist said:
> ...



True enough! Are there really any 'new' errors? Or just 'old' errors in new clothing?

(BTW, hyper-preterists would say that Hymenaeus was in error because at that time the resurrection was still future but they are not because the resurrection was past.)


----------



## calgal (Nov 13, 2007)

Thanks! I had an encounter with a full preterist and was chewed out for being "mean" to the poor preterist by some other folks on the email list.  A friend described hyper preterists as being too close to damnable heresy.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> I don't see how a church can be expected to police the sheep's *thoughts*! If we excommunicated everyone who believed an error, we would have a church of one. Belief in an error, as unfortunate as it is, is not grounds for discipline. Spreading that belief and causing division is. In fact, I have admiration and hope for the man who can say, "Well, I don't agree but I am going to keep my mouth shut for the sake of church unity." (I've had to keep my mouth shut before, as I assume Rich must do now)




Hyper-preterists believe the resurection of the dead already happened. So....



> 1 Tim. 1:18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, 19holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. *20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.*



What did Hymenaeus believe?



> Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. *They say that the resurrection has already taken place*, and they destroy the faith of some.



So, this isn't policing thoughts. In order for Wison to say that they can stay at the church as long as they don't teach is to say he *knows* what they believe.

What they believe is "gangrenous."

Cut the gangrene out. Don't let it spread. Use a butter knife if need be.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> I think you might be painting them with a bit of a broad brush here. I think hyper-preterists would argue that it is a bodily resurrection, but looks a little different than our current bodies. They would point out that the resurrected Jesus is able to appear and disappear and walk through walls etc. (I am not defending their argument)



Jesus was a physical model or picture of the resurrection that will happen to us, they say. The actually say that the "resurrection of the dead" is what we'd call "regeneration." They believe that you are resurrected in the final resurrection from the dead sense. That's the majority belief, the party line. Here's from a Hyper-preterist discussion board:



> "The passage you quoted does not say that "the resurrection of Jesus BODY begat in us a hope." It is speaking to the resurrection of Jesus THE PERSON."
> 
> "The “personal” resurrection of Jesus proved that He overcame death (“spiritual death”, our spiritual death) and is what birthed the hope."



(Not providing the link, for obvious reasons.)


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Anyone familiar with Mike Krall? He has some good links on his page, but is he hyper preterist? Very solid on soteriology...



I am. Last I knew he was a hard core hyper-preterist.

I interacted with him in "Z" on this list of arguments of mine:

Triablogue: Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?




Most say our body just disintergrates, our soul goes on living forever with God. However, when pressed to provide exegetical warrant for this, they don't have much by way of response.

Since Jesus still has a body (allegedly), and Enoch was taken up bodily, and so was Elijah, I guess those three just kick it together forever while we all float around them as disembodied souls.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...



We are in the New Heavens and New Earth right now (NH & NE). For the hyper-preterist the NH & NE is just the "New Covenant."

The gates are open allowing people to enter into it (i.e., convert), and those outside the gates are the unregenerate and reprobate.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

Poimen said:


> > This world, along with sin, death and rebellion against God continues for eternity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I marshal 25 "arguments" against them here

Triablogue: Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism

If that helps your studies.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

KMK said:


> (BTW, hyper-preterists would say that Hymenaeus was in error because at that time the resurrection was still future but they are not because the resurrection was past.)



Yes, they would say that. But if we are correct, then they are guilty of the Hymenaeun heresy.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 13, 2007)

calgal said:


> Thanks! I had an encounter with a full preterist and was chewed out for being "mean" to the poor preterist by some other folks on the email list.  A friend described hyper preterists as being too close to damnable heresy.



As him/her if she thinks Paul was "mean" to Hymenaeus.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone familiar with Mike Krall? He has some good links on his page, but is he hyper preterist? Very solid on soteriology...
> ...



Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Blueridge Baptist said:
> ...




Thanks for your posts in this thread brother!!!


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 14, 2007)

This is one of my favorite passages.



> (Job 19:25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
> 
> (Job 19:26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
> 
> (Job 19:27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.



I have heard of this heresy for years. It seems that this nonsense would just go away, but it rears its head ever so once in a while to my amazement.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.



Every Hyper-preterist I've ever met has been a Calvinist.

Almost every heretic was "no slouch" when it came to reading and understanding (depending on how you're using 'understanding').


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)



Not sure what they believed but even if they did that would not make it okay. These men were right about a number of things but not everything. The idea of a "spiritual resurrection and afterlife" goes against Paul's arguments in 1 Cor 15. Our bodies may not be the same when Christ returns and all are resurrected but it will be a human body. The clear teaching of Scripture and the Church is that the body will be reunited with the soul at the second coming.

I tend to think that the idea of a spirit body, which goes along with the idea that Jesus could walk through walls and doors, goes hand in hand with gnosticism, ie; the body is evil. Gnostic ideas are very prevelent within Evangelicalism as trichotomy is probably the majority opinion in the church today.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)



Before I answer that, tell me what you think Paul meant when he said Hymenaeus' teachings/beliefs that the resurrection had already happened was gangrenous, and that he was turning him over to satan to be taught not to blaspheme.


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)
> ...



I agree with you on each point. I believe in a 'bodily resurrection'. I believe that 1 Cor 15:44 says we will experience a physical resurrection whereby we will be driven by the affections of the spirit and not the flesh.

My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)
> ...



I am not arguing with you, Mr. Manata. I agree with what you have written. Entering into an argument with you would be like trying to fight a land war in Russia!


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 14, 2007)

> My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?



Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.
> ...



The point I am making is reading everything else from Krall is pretty much spot on in regards to orthodoxy. And he is not just a bandwagon interent theologian.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Nov 14, 2007)

Has anyone listened to the Resurrection debate on Covenant Radio between Gregg Strawbridge and Don Preston?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 14, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> > My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?
> 
> 
> 
> Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.



WSW: What is the distinction you are making here? Are you saying that one tenant of HP does not make it damnable, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



That wasn't my point. You asked if it was damnable heresy. I asked what you make of Paul's claim. That is, what do you think he was saying about Hymenaeus?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Amazing Grace said:
> ...



Well, I'd rather read the Helms, Wares, Schreiners, Carsons, Grudems, Pipers, Frames, Hortons, Moos, Whites, Crisps, Wellums, and that's just the living guys, than "dudes on the internet."

But, if you're strong enough and confident in your eschatological hermeneutics, and you find his other material edifying and profitable for your Calvinist theology and apologetics, then I guess read his stuff.

The point I was making was in regards to your question about whether krall would be a "rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic." 

My answer was, "No, he wouldn't, since every hyper-preterist I've met is 'hard core' calvinistic."


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 14, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> > > My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?
> ...



The distinction that I'm making is between a full preterist and someone who is not a full preterist, ie; they believe that there is a second coming (not 70 AD), that there is a resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and earth are after the second coming, etc. etc. but may have been influenced by modern gnostic evangelicalism and really don't know how to handle what our future state will be like (spirit body like a ghost versus a glorified physical body). Therefore a person who only holds to the idea that we are going to be floating around as disembodied spirits in eternity is holding to a heretical position but that position may not be damnable. Unfortunately the spirit body for all eternity is not an exclusive position of HP. I would hazzard to guess a lot of Christians buy into it. It is part of the gnosticism that is apart of today's broadly Evangelical church like trichotomy.

Am I being as clear as mud?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 14, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > wsw201 said:
> ...



Very clear....

Is there a DNA of HP tenants? Forinstance, if we tok tulip and one did not adhere to the "p" can we do that with HPers?


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



They must be so, BTW, because the doctrine election is the glue that holds together their insistance that final judgment for all happened in AD 70.


----------



## KMK (Nov 14, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > I think you might be painting them with a bit of a broad brush here. I think hyper-preterists would argue that it is a bodily resurrection, but looks a little different than our current bodies. They would point out that the resurrected Jesus is able to appear and disappear and walk through walls etc. (I am not defending their argument)
> ...



This is interesting. Wouldn't this line of thinking then lead to the notion that Jesus must have been 'spiritually dead'? How do they torture Scripture to make that stick?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



KMK,

That was one of the points I raised in the link I provided on page 1 of this thread - Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-preterism. See [ I ] and [ K ].


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...




If Hymenaeus remained unrepentant, where would his final destiny lie?


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 14, 2007)

KMK said:


> Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)




Let's also remember that a motivation against false and improper teaching is that teachers would be judged more strictly than the laymen. If the judgment has passed, where is my motivation to make sure I'm careful in my studies, accurately representing the truth?


----------



## KMK (Nov 15, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)
> ...



Good point. In there opinion 99.9999% of all preachers 'shall be saved; yet so as by fire.' When is that 'fire' supposed to happen?


----------



## KMK (Nov 15, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



With Satan...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 15, 2007)

KMK said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...




So are you prepared to answer your question?


----------



## KMK (Nov 15, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



What was the question?


----------

