Can one be a Full Preterist and still be Reformed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Apostles' Creed stresses both, though. The point is that the resurrection is not only a spiritual resurrection but a bodily resurrection. Inherent in the idea of a spiritual resurrection only is the necessity of soul-sleep until the resurrection, denying the "today" part of Jesus' words on the cross to the thief beside Him.

Hi John, right...thanks...but, I don't see how spiritual resurrection demands soul sleep, I know it's another thread, but, absent from the body, present with the Lord...when we die, we are awake somewhere, not asleep, but just not in our "physical" bodies...we are instantly resurrected in our bodies not of flesh and blood...I think that's what the Hyper Preterists hold to, but, Jesus, a special case, actually has a PHYSCIAL body for eternity.

I hold to the Apostles Creed, but, just as a thought.:book2:
 
I had been in an extended debate with a HP guy (who apparently just wrote a book on the topic, and is teaching at a Calvary Chapel--go figure?), and his position was that Christ does now NOT have a physical body at all. He only ascended in a physical body, but does no longer posses one. As such, how can he been fully God and fully man NOW? He thought that such a formulation is only creedal and not biblical, so it did not concern him.

Furthermore, what about the Lord's Supper? *Some* (read: the more consistent ones) HPers also deny that believers should participate in the Lord's Supper, since Christ came back *finally* in AD70.

There are many other areas that are in disagreement with Orthodox Christianity, and necessarily so, since there is a fundamental, philosophical, and paradigmatic (to use his words) hermeneutic disagreement between the two parties. So the disagreements go far beyond issues of the 'eternal state'. If that is all they disagreed on (what OUR state will be like after death), there would be far more wiggle room, especially since a rising number of Christian philosophers have denied the intermediate state while affirming a bodily resurrection.
 
A point of clarification. When I say that a full preterist is not a Christian it is based on the fact that the bodily resurrection (and I mean a real human body not a spiritual body) and final judgment have been fundemental to the Christian faith since the beginning. I could not imagine that there would be a Session out there that would not require a member of their church to repent of such a belief as full preterism or face excommunication.

The fact that they believe in "a resurrection" is inconsequential. Arians believe Christ was the Son of God but with a twist; he was a created being not eternal and therefore they are not Christians.

BTW, I'm not coming down on you. I understand that you are not defending their position.

Just to clarify, are you saying that anyone who believes in a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual eternal state is still in their sins and headed for eternal damnation?

No I'm not. I'm saying that they are not a Christian. If someone is excommunicated for holding heretical views they are to be treated as an unbeliever, ie; not a Christian, until they repent. excommunication is not a judgment regarding heaven or hell. Just as there is always room for jello there is always room for repentance.

Consider 2 Timothy 1:20 and 2:17 where Pauls talks about Hymenaeus and Philetus.

Mathew Henry notes in Commentary the following regarding 2:16ff:

Shun profane and vain babblings. The heretics, who boasted of their notions and their arguments, thought their performances such as might recommend them; but the apostle calls them profane and vain babblings: when once men become fond of those they will increase unto more ungodliness. The way of error is down-hill; one absurdity being granted or contended for, a thousand follow: Their word will eat as doth a canker, or gangrene; when errors or heresies come into the church, the infecting of one often proves the infecting of many, or the infecting of the same person with one error often proves the infecting of him with many errors. Upon this occasion the apostle mentions some who had lately advanced erroneous doctrines: Hymeneus and Philetus. He names these corrupt teachers, by which he sets a brand upon them, to their perpetual infamy, and warns all people against hearkening to them. They have erred concerning the truth, or concerning one of the fundamental articles of the Christian religion, which is truth. The resurrection of the dead is one of the great doctrines of Christ. Now see the subtlety of the serpent and the serpent’s seed. They did not deny the resurrection (for that had been boldly and avowedly to confront the word of Christ), but they put a corrupt interpretation upon that true doctrine, saying that the resurrection was past already, that what Christ spoke concerning the resurrection was to be understood mystically and by way of allegory, that it must be meant of a spiritual resurrection only. It is true, there is a spiritual resurrection, but to infer thence that there will not be a true and real resurrection of the body at the last day is to dash one truth of Christ in pieces against another. By this they overthrew the faith of some, took them off from the belief of the resurrection of the dead; and if there be no resurrection of the dead, nor future state, no recompence of our services and sufferings in another world, we are of men the most miserable, 1 Co. 15:19. Whatever takes away the doctrine of a future state overthrows the faith of Christians. The apostle had largely disproved this error (1 Co. 15), and therefore does not here enter into the arguments against it. Observe, 1. The babblings Timothy was to shun were profane and vain; they were empty shadows, and led to profaneness: For they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2. Error is very productive, and on that account the more dangerous: it will eat like a gangrene. 3. When men err concerning the truth, they always endeavour to have some plausible pretence for it. Hymeneus and Philetus did not deny a resurrection, but pretended it was already past. 4. Error, especially that which affects the foundation, will overthrow the faith of some.

Thanks for the clarification and I agree except for the fact that it is theoretically possible for one to believe in Hyper-preterism and yet keep their mouth shut and would therefore not be excommunicated and therefore still be a Christian.

This is a theoretical argument and I understand that most heretics can't help bu push their doctrine in the church any more than a drunk can help taking that next swig. (Just look at Servetus)
 
I had been in an extended debate with a HP guy (who apparently just wrote a book on the topic, and is teaching at a Calvary Chapel--go figure?), and his position was that Christ does now NOT have a physical body at all. He only ascended in a physical body, but does no longer posses one. As such, how can he been fully God and fully man NOW? He thought that such a formulation is only creedal and not biblical, so it did not concern him.

Furthermore, what about the Lord's Supper? *Some* (read: the more consistent ones) HPers also deny that believers should participate in the Lord's Supper, since Christ came back *finally* in AD70.

There are many other areas that are in disagreement with Orthodox Christianity, and necessarily so, since there is a fundamental, philosophical, and paradigmatic (to use his words) hermeneutic disagreement between the two parties. So the disagreements go far beyond issues of the 'eternal state'. If that is all they disagreed on (what OUR state will be like after death), there would be far more wiggle room, especially since a rising number of Christian philosophers have denied the intermediate state while affirming a bodily resurrection.

He won't be teaching at Calvary Chpael long.

They get around the Lord's Supper argument by pointing out that Jesus did not say, "Do this in remembrance of Me until I come and then stop."

You are correct that this wouldn't be as much of an issue if it was just an argument over the eternal state. But in order to uphold their system they have to pervert much more of the NT by making all of the Gospel's teaching about hell point to a 'temporal' rather than 'eternal' judgment.
 
I don't know....

About being around Calvary long or not....error births error...it was a great, verse by verse, bible teaching Calvary Chapel Pastor, where I first heard the "Our eternal bodies might not be physical, maybe spiritual" teaching......when you're making it up as you go, without History and Confessions, who knows where that movement could end up?
 
The Apostles' Creed stresses both, though. The point is that the resurrection is not only a spiritual resurrection but a bodily resurrection. Inherent in the idea of a spiritual resurrection only is the necessity of soul-sleep until the resurrection, denying the "today" part of Jesus' words on the cross to the thief beside Him.

Hi John, right...thanks...but, I don't see how spiritual resurrection demands soul sleep, I know it's another thread, but, absent from the body, present with the Lord...when we die, we are awake somewhere, not asleep, but just not in our "physical" bodies...we are instantly resurrected in our bodies not of flesh and blood...I think that's what the Hyper Preterists hold to, but, Jesus, a special case, actually has a PHYSCIAL body for eternity.

I hold to the Apostles Creed, but, just as a thought.:book2:

Trevor:

I didn't say that affirming the spiritual resurrection demands soul-sleep. I said that denying the resurrection of the body and yet still looking to a resurrection requires some sort of soul-sleep. My emphasis was on denying the bodily resurrection, and on what remains to be resurrected if not the body.
 
I had been in an extended debate with a HP guy (who apparently just wrote a book on the topic, and is teaching at a Calvary Chapel--go figure?), and his position was that Christ does now NOT have a physical body at all. He only ascended in a physical body, but does no longer posses one. As such, how can he been fully God and fully man NOW? He thought that such a formulation is only creedal and not biblical, so it did not concern him.

Furthermore, what about the Lord's Supper? *Some* (read: the more consistent ones) HPers also deny that believers should participate in the Lord's Supper, since Christ came back *finally* in AD70.

There are many other areas that are in disagreement with Orthodox Christianity, and necessarily so, since there is a fundamental, philosophical, and paradigmatic (to use his words) hermeneutic disagreement between the two parties. So the disagreements go far beyond issues of the 'eternal state'. If that is all they disagreed on (what OUR state will be like after death), there would be far more wiggle room, especially since a rising number of Christian philosophers have denied the intermediate state while affirming a bodily resurrection.

He won't be teaching at Calvary Chpael long.

They get around the Lord's Supper argument by pointing out that Jesus did not say, "Do this in remembrance of Me until I come and then stop."

You are correct that this wouldn't be as much of an issue if it was just an argument over the eternal state. But in order to uphold their system they have to pervert much more of the NT by making all of the Gospel's teaching about hell point to a 'temporal' rather than 'eternal' judgment.

Well, the Pastor knows of his beliefs, so I don't know.

As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, I don't know if that is even a coherent answer. In other words, 'until' is a temporal term which denotes an end point. So to say, "Do this in remembrance of Me until I come and then stop", is to say: 'Do this in remembrance of Me and then terminate this at my coming (t1) and then stop at t1'--which is redundant.
 
I had been in an extended debate with a HP guy (who apparently just wrote a book on the topic, and is teaching at a Calvary Chapel--go figure?), and his position was that Christ does now NOT have a physical body at all. He only ascended in a physical body, but does no longer posses one. As such, how can he been fully God and fully man NOW? He thought that such a formulation is only creedal and not biblical, so it did not concern him.

Furthermore, what about the Lord's Supper? *Some* (read: the more consistent ones) HPers also deny that believers should participate in the Lord's Supper, since Christ came back *finally* in AD70.

There are many other areas that are in disagreement with Orthodox Christianity, and necessarily so, since there is a fundamental, philosophical, and paradigmatic (to use his words) hermeneutic disagreement between the two parties. So the disagreements go far beyond issues of the 'eternal state'. If that is all they disagreed on (what OUR state will be like after death), there would be far more wiggle room, especially since a rising number of Christian philosophers have denied the intermediate state while affirming a bodily resurrection.

He won't be teaching at Calvary Chpael long.

They get around the Lord's Supper argument by pointing out that Jesus did not say, "Do this in remembrance of Me until I come and then stop."

You are correct that this wouldn't be as much of an issue if it was just an argument over the eternal state. But in order to uphold their system they have to pervert much more of the NT by making all of the Gospel's teaching about hell point to a 'temporal' rather than 'eternal' judgment.

Well, the Pastor knows of his beliefs, so I don't know.

As far as the Lord's Supper is concerned, I don't know if that is even a coherent answer. In other words, 'until' is a temporal term which denotes an end point. So to say, "Do this in remembrance of Me until I come and then stop", is to say: 'Do this in remembrance of Me and then terminate this at my coming (t1) and then stop at t1'--which is redundant.

I agree! If I say to my son, "I am going to the store to buy dinner. I want you to continue working on your homework until I get back." my son is going to assume I mean that when I return he can stop doing his homework.
 
About being around Calvary long or not....error births error...it was a great, verse by verse, bible teaching Calvary Chapel Pastor, where I first heard the "Our eternal bodies might not be physical, maybe spiritual" teaching......when you're making it up as you go, without History and Confessions, who knows where that movement could end up?

But one of the distinctives of CC is Dispensationalism. Hyper-preterism is asymetrically opposed to Dispensationalism. Papa Chuck won't put up with it for long.
 
J. Stuart Russell is known as a "full preterist" and R.C. Sproul and Ken Gentry both endorse his book The Parousia. Although they say they do not endorse "all" of what is in the book there is still a positive endorsement of it. Why is this?
 
J. Stuart Russell is known as a "full preterist" and R.C. Sproul and Ken Gentry both endorse his book The Parousia. Although they say they do not endorse "all" of what is in the book there is still a positive endorsement of it. Why is this?

I don't know. But I do think Gentry and/or DeMar should get on the stick and write a thorough critique of the hyperpreterist arguments because it was through their works that most of these hyperpreterists arrived at the the place they are now. (Them and David Chilton who already went to glory) In fact, they look at themselves as following the preterist system to its logical conclusion. I know Gentry has a tape about hyperpreterism but more needs to be done.
 
Thanks for your response. I would like to get some of thouse lectures you mentioned do you have a link where I might order them? This is a topic that I really need to study more about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top