Since we have cleaned house, so to speak, and since I am completely free from certain quarters of criticism, which is a breath of fresh air, I wanted to write this little blog in what may be one of my last responses of this sort, with this sort.
We have not heard from the opponents concerning Dr. Birks and his justification for his IBD view. Remember, this view is that the body of the believer is in no way “raised from the dead.” The “soul” of the believer is “clothed” with a brand new body from heaven. Birks, recently, justified this view as being orthodox: “my view of the resurrection is within the boundries of reformed opinion because the end result is the same. Whether it’s a body out of the ground or an indivdual body out heaven, the result is that persistency of personality (the saved human spirit) is housed in a Christ like individual body. Being “reformed” does not…does not mean that you must hold to a simple static view of a doctrine. As long as the perameters of the meaning remain the same (in their results) it can be acceptable within reformed constitution” (Preterism Debate site). I showed that this cannot possibly be the case, and cannot possibly be argued from the Westminster Confession.
The Confession was very clear as to the manner of resurrection of the body, and the nature. However, no one, to my knowledge, has come forward to rebut this idea on our opponents side. We have to assume, then, that this truly is no big deal with them.
In the book, House Divided, we showed where several prominent Reformed theologians view the Church as in the “Age to Come”, which completely contradicts the historic confession that we “look forward to the age to come.” I have also noted that the Chalcedonian Creed views the Church as living “in these last days”, written well past A.D. 70. We now have a current view, called Realized Preterism, which posits that the Second Coming in not future, but “already began” in A.D. 70 and stretches throughout Church History, culminating in the bodily, visible return of the Lord. All of these elements are found within our most vocal opponents’ views – and they claim that they are still “orthodox” and in step with “2,000 years of Church History.”
Let’s, then, put this together:
According to them, the “last days” ended in A.D. 70, contradicting, Chalcedon. We are in the Age to Come, contradicting the Nicene Creed. The Second Coming is not wholly future, but “began” in A.D. 70, contradicting every known creed and confession. The resurrection of the dead does not have to imply the resurrection of dead bodies, but only of souls getting new bodies, contradicting every known Creed and Confession. Get all of that?
The major victory is that the “Church History” argument, the “orthodox” argument, and the “nature” of the resurrection argument are all smashed when they attempt to use these slogans against us. Full Preterism has made such a force upon our “orthodox” opponents that they have unwittingly accomodated unorthodox and unhistoric elements into their own “orthodox” (so called) and “historic” (so called) eschatology! They cannot possibly wave the flag of orthodoxy any longer.
This is not meant to imply that the true orthodox view, those in total agreement with the Creeds and Confessions, cannot still raise that flag. But, those more orthodox flag raisers would have to raise it against this group, as well. In short, this argument, as far as I am concerned, has been demolished. The tide has turned. A new day has arisen!
Now, of course, we have a long way to go. Many see the fallacy of appeal to history, and go straight to the real issues in the Bible, namely, the resurrection of the dead. The Church History argument is an easy hurdle for some, but the biblical issue, tied to proper exegesis, is the real deal. The Bible can be made to appear as if it teaches a resurrection of dead bodies. I stress, “can be made to appear”. I don’t believe it does teach this. I don’t think a deeper reading of it teaches this at all, but, in fact, as history DOES demonstrate, and as any academic scholar I have read would readily admit, the idea of dead bodies being reunited with souls runs into numerous problematic issues within OT and NT interpretation. That is, it is an easy subject to read on the surface, as I did growing up, that “obviously” and “clearly” I Corinthians 15 teaches the resurrection of individual, physical bodies that died at sea, in the tomb, or on land. The problem is, when you start reading Schweitzer, Bultmann, Cullman, Dodd, and many, many others, and, when you start learning to translate Greek, reading the technical commentaries, the “details” used to support such an “obvious” doctrine become not-so-clear anymore. There are noted problems with this view when it comes to interpreting the NT text on a deeper level.
But, that’s what we look forward to. For now, I am just basking in the victory. One battle at a time, folks. That’s all this old man can handle.
” Get all of that?”
Got it!
Sam, I am glad to see you feeling refreshed and energized and having the other crowd sitting at bay for now.
Have a great day,
Ron
FOLLOW UP!!!!! Dr. K. Talbot, who is recently engaged in a very enjoyable debate with Roderick Edwards, has caught the attention of my “tactic” here. As Dr. T. and I iron out some personal issues, I have to say, I miss his humor and acute sense of analysis. I give you, Dr. Talbot:
“First Roderick, this is a logical fallacy by Sam (you didn’t know this, WOW) Now Roderick, Samuel says “If Birks” gets a “stamp of approval” from the gentlemen representing Theology Explains.” Well, first this is not what you stated. You misrepresented the statement! It is called a hyperbole, that is, an exaggerated statement! This is because I permitted Dr. Birks to become a member of TE and for a reason. Now Samuel, Larry, and few others wanted to join TE, but we said no. Needless to say they were not too happy. This is their tactic to try to force me to put Dr. Birks out! Nice try Sam! But you Roderick, who knows so much about the “tactics” of the Hyperpreterists didn’t see that tactical move by them? Now if you say you did, then you are being disingenuous to use their “tactic” (what, Roderick is using their tactics?) against me? However, if you did not see that, then what you stated below is even lower than the Hyperpreterist and you walked right into it! Let’s take a close look! Oh, by the way, neither I, nor do the TE or Seminary professors hold or approve of the IBD position. Dr. Birks knows that as well. So you ask: “What are you doing with Dr. Birks at TE? Well I could ask the same question about what is he doing at Pretblog! But here is the answer if you must know – ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! I don’t answer to you! Actually, I do answer to Sharon, she owns the site (after this issue, I am in the dog house because I promised not to make this a debate site). We are opening the other one back up and it will be FANTASTIC!”
I do have to clear some things up. I didn't want to become a member (I knew I wouldn't get in). I did sign up, though, to see what was “required” (being familiar with the NING thing). I don't want to be a member there, and am not angry about it (I understand it). What I did have a question about was how Birks slid in. Well, it was not because of what Birks said. Remember, he said because his views were “acceptable within the parameters of Reformed orthodoxy.” Dr. Talbot FLATLY denies this….right here….in black and white. Which, if you read my article here and the previous article (Calvin Speaks from the Grave), I wrote that I had my suspicions that Birks was playing hard and fast with this admission. What's funny here is that “Dr. Birks knows this well”. He does? Remember, Birks wrote, ““my view of the resurrection is within the boundries of reformed opinion because the end result is the same. Whether it’s a body out of the ground or an indivdual body out heaven, the result is that persistency of personality (the saved human spirit) is housed in a Christ like individual body. Being “reformed” does not…does not mean that you must hold to a simple static view of a doctrine. As long as the perameters of the meaning remain the same (in their results) it can be acceptable within reformed constitution.” Dr. Talbot flatly denies this AND, AND, includes TE in it, as well as saying that Birks KNOWS this…..so, why did Birks WRITE this statement?
Things to make you go, hmmmmm
for “source” go to: http://theologyexplained.ning.com/group/memberp...
haha. apparently you and i were reading the same site just now.
wowzers. Rod is getting nailed by Dr T, Sharon, and Phil. Asked to leave.
It's happening, just like we predicted. He isolated himself within the preterist world…his behavior didn't change…and now he's isolating himself from the “orthodox”.
It truly is sad. Since orthodoxy is the last stop, where will he go from here? This is the path many who have apostatized have gone.
A part of me wants to celebrate the vindication…another part of me worries about his behavior. I truly do hope he wakes up soon.
It's one thing when we heretics point it out. Quite another when a gang of the “orthodox” points it out. The reason for correction is always that it may, hopefully, lead to repentance. That's always the goal. I hope this is the goal in Roderick's case. I have prayed in the past for this about him. It's interesting that Talbot made the exact same observation about his zeal, but having no knowledge. This is precisely what I mean by the “Second wave” of attacks that are going to come. The personal attacks are done. The “orthodox” gang, the ones I care about anyway, are seeing this. If they follow Talbot's lead, the guns are going to come out concerning our exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. Now, this is what we have been waiting for all along. It is here, I believe, that it will be the toughest part of it. We have survived the “2000 years of church history” line. We have survived the personal attacks line. What's next? Exegesis. Detailed, minute, theological, and logical. If they are going to win the battle, it will be here. If they fail in this task (and God has a way of defeating us if He so desires, if we are in fact declaring a falsehood in His Holy Name), that's it.
This will be a long drawn out affair as well. It will tax a heavy burden. We simply have to stand our ground, insist on the rules of hermeneutics as we have classically been taught, and the role of Logic. I can tell you this, brother, I am READY!
Sam,
Thanks for the link to Dr. Talbot’s debate. It was very interesting and instructional.
Is it just a misunderstanding of mine, or did Dr. Talbot more or less admit that the creedal argument against Full Preterism is not sufficient and concede that “testing truth claims” and “exegetical studies” (scripture) will be required to prove whether it is heretical?
I think that we Full Preterists already concede that our view is heretical relative to the Orthodox Creeds. So, why would Dr. Talbot feel the need to pursue “testing truth claims” and “exegetical studies” unless there was some doubt that the Creeds faithfully represent the scriptures?
This seems big to me, but maybe I just misunderstand what he’s doing and why.
martin
Sam wrote: “…insist on the rules of hermeneutics as we have classically been taught…”
I am not so sure that we as (hyper) preterists truly subscribe to this. This is one of the major issues that I see – we deviate from “orthodox” hermeneutic methods. This does not make our hermeneutic error; but I am not sure how the preterist hermeneutic falls within the “rules” as we have been taught.
Sam: I think I know what you are trying to say, but it may be helpful if we define exactly what those “rules of hermeneutics [that] we have classically been taught” are. Personally, I think this is the heart of the battle!
{The Second Coming is not wholly future, but “began” in A.D. 70}
From my estimation from talks with Dr. T and other studies, Realized Preterism holds that the Parousia (not the second coming) “began” in the Incarnation and is realized in history in events not limited to the Ascension, the sending of the Holy Spirit, and the end of the age. Also see Q. 47 of the Heidelberg Catechism and Matthew 28:20. Although the Scriptures often refer to a past dispensational age as in the last days, I cannot think of any to be taken seriously who take the last days to be exhausted and also understand the Last Day as future. I am sure you understand you have abstracted this possition.
Vince,
If anyone is “abstracting” it is you guys. Q. 47 of the Catechism hardly teaches your position. Q. 54 and 57 refute it. How you see the “parousia” beginning in the Incarnation is also impossible, since it is not related to that event at all in Scripture. Last days end with the Last Day. You cannot make “last days” expand two thousand years. It would be prepostrous to do this and still retain any meaning to “last” since 2000 years is longer than even the time under Moses! I know what you guys are trying to do….and look forward to seeing it in exegetical essays, but it will simply be another view trying to have its preterist cake and eat its orthodox icing. Can't be done.
Bryan,
Name one rule (not specific to any system, but utilized by all christian systems) that we break? Name one that we invented. I can't find any. Berkhof or Ramm, or Terry. We use their rules. If I am missing something, let me know.
Martin,
that is more or less what Talbot is saying. It is not sufficient enough to demonstrate from creeds and history that we are wrong. Those creeds are only true if and only if they agree with the Bible. That is what has to be proven.
Both Talbot and I start at the same place: “the bible is the word of God, written.” We then deduce systematic theology from that. Talbot's claim is that the WCF is the most logically vaild deduced system, whereas our system, although we start out in the same place, somewhere begins to make invalid deductions, thus rendering it null and void. Talbot's point is to show WHERE, exegetically, this system went wrong, and believes that he can demonstrate this FROM THE BIBLE.
You have to really understand where he is coming from here. The WCF is a system. As such, it's claim is that, although subject to “error”" and to be judged upon the merits of the Bible, it is a properly deduced system, more or less. One, then, ought to be able to demonstrate each of its statements from the Bible. This is a painstaking process (read any systematic theology book). This is where Talbot is rightly making his point: you have to show the hyperpreterist where his exegesis is at fault. It does no good to continue to hammer him over the head with “2000 years of church history.” Now, Talbot believes that there is an implied “arrogance” on our part for saying, “hey, these guys got it wrong on SOME things” (like Luther did), because he does see some weight to the historical argument. He just doesn't put all his money on it. If Sola Scriptura were running a race with Church History, ole' Sola Scriptura would win by a length. Talbot's bet is on Sola Scriptura, with Church History coming in second place.
This is what I am saying here as a victory. Talbot sees the issues. He does not believe that we can make the Bible say anything people want it to say. I don't either. I have never believed that nonsense. Jim Jones could have easily been proven wrong. So could all the other wackos. You CAN'T make the Bible say whatever it wants. The Bible speaks on its own authority. This is what Roderick denies. If the Bible so plainly and clearly teaches what Futurists say that it does, then there should be absolutely no problem whatsoever in demonstrating this, especially in light of 2000 years of church history. It would seem to be an easy thing to dismiss.
Now, we will see just how 'easy' this will be…….
Sam wrote: “Jim Jones could have easily been proven wrong.”
FWIW, Jim Jones did not believe the Bible. At least not according to my in-depth research, which consisted of watching a made-for-TV movie about him. 8-)
Jim Jones taught a social gospel rooted in a pentecostal framework with an end time scenario to boot. He was a liberal and a socialist, so his gospel was liberal, but he most certainly utlized biblical vocabulary (based on my indepth study which including listening to his sermons, reading various transscripts, studies in conspiracy theories, several documentaries and book. The Jim Jones saga shocked me as a 12 year old (1978, 79). I remember it vividly and have followed its case evr since. Strange, I know, for a 12 year old, but that's my step-father in me…..researcher). The drugs finally did him in (drug induced paranoia, which accompanies severe abuse over years). He began, though, in Indiana as a pentecostal preacher (faith healer). His attraction was care for the poor and the outside black community (racism is deep in Indiana), and he drew a great deal of criticism from the white churches. This isolationism began to start the ball rolling for his vision of a communal (communistic) project, the Peoples Temple. I believe Jones used religion (particularly the kind that draws in the poor, the sick and the elderly, and also a great deal of the black poor – which made up the majority of his congregations) to further his radical agenda. Those in his inner circle knew it. A biblical Christian, armed with the word of God would have seen right through it, and some did (in San Francisco, where “defectors” urged Congressman Ryan to investigate the abuse). Cults like these are bound to fail because they have no foundation in the word of God. So, Jones could have easily been proven wrong from the get go. You can spot a cult a mile away.
That is why trying to say Sam is leading a cult is bogus. (a much friendly 'B' word than I had in mind). A cult is all about finding some obscure passage to make into a catch phrase so as to sound like something biblical is what it is about. And from there it jumps to make the things that be of men seem sanctified – like adultery and such (drugs!).
This is not what leads to preterism, nor is it how I came to the preterist position. Rather it was the 'catch doctrines' of the dispensationalists that caused the red flags and caused me to look further into the scriptures. This is not the testimony you hear from cults who keep to the practice of lifting texts from their contexts.
If the antiprets ever expect to make any legimate headway against preterism, they will have to do better than the tactics they are presently using. But since they have difficulty proving that their futurist scenario is biblical, I expect it will be a long time coming before they can disprove what looking into the scriptures alone has brought us to believe. Which I look forward to also, because it means they will have to clean up their own camp first.
Robin
Sam:
I did not say that we “break” any rules, or that we have “invented” any rules. All I am saying is if you (that is, “we” – your sycophants! lol) actually DO “…insist on the rules of hermeneutics as we have classically been taught…”, I think it would be helpful for us to state all of those rules specifically, and then be held accountable to those rules (both “in house” and by our critical brethren.)
If we don't do this, then if (when) we do “deviate from 'orthodox' hermeneutic methods” (as I stated above) it simply gives our adversaries the ammunition with which to attack us with.
However, if we DO stay within “classical hermeneutics” then they cannot attack us AND remain intellectually honest. If we don't stay within “classical hermeneutics”, then it is up to us to justify why we think the classical hermeneutic is in error (at that specific juncture where we deviate from it), and why the “preterist hermeneutic” (to coin a phrase) is superior to the “classical” (i.e. “orthodox”).
Again, I think THIS is where the battle truly lies.
Blessings to you, and thanks for all your hard work!
Call me – come over for a beer! :)
Bryan,
Gotcha. I can come over for a Coke! The “beer” thing is no longer on my menu. Lol.
Umm, let's see. I would recommend the books by Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation; Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics; Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation; and D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. The first three were textbooks of Whitefield Theological Seminary (I don't know if they still use them). The “rules” in those works, more or less, shape my rules. Of course, no one is going to agree with everything written within these books, but the main, general principles of them. Another one is Gordon Fee and Douglas Moo, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth. That was an introduction for me at college.
Of course, these rules incorporate some bias, to some extent. Dispensational hermeneutics, for example, would deviate from the rules of prophetic interpretation in Berkhof. A “system” begins to run the show after awile.
See, here's the problem: you want to have a historical frameowork within which to interpret the various passages of Scriptures as they relate to a given topic. This is systematics. Calvinism, for example, is a system. When “problem passages” come up, the system of Calvinism will override those passages for the larger whole of the system. Same for Arminianism, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Preterism, whatever. The system, or framework has to be also derived from the Scriptures. It is here the analogia fidei kicks in. The “clearer” passages override or help shore up the “darker” passages. It depends on where on starts to build their system, what will become the overarching framework within which the Bible is interpreted. Since this is systematic, what is sought to be eliminated is contradiction within the way the system operates.
You know this, but I will give you an example. In some passages it says “God changed his mind.” Now, in Calvinism, this cannot be. Something has to be done with this verse. It has to interpreted within the larger, clearer passages that speak of God as omniscient. That he is the same today, yesterday and forever. This gets messy. But, it is necessary.
The same for Preterism. The clear passages for us are the “time-texts”. Daniel gives an outline. These are simply passages for us, and we utilize them for a starting point to build the overarching framework, from Scripture, to interpret other passages of Scripture. Since the “resurrection of the dead” was clearly attached to what was “at hand”, then the traditional view of a casket resurrection must be wrong. We don't start with I Corinthians 15 (like some want to among the Futurists). We have to point our hearers to start with the clear passages, then operate, systematically and logically, through the rest of the Bible, seeing if we can make valid deductions as we go along. In the case of the “resurrection of the dead”, we would ask, is there a way in which this doctrine can be had in the first century fulfillment. Drawing off of as much church history we can, noting a rich “spiritual resurrection” (regeneration) heritage there, and, two, noting the conflicting material within church history on the proper meaning of “resurrection of the dead”, we note that this doctrine is not so strong as it is made out to be. There are incredible difficulties that have attached itself to explaining this doctrine logically and theologically in church history. This opens the door, then, to explore a logical alternative while still remaining within the urging of the material we gathered from church history. Remember, in systematics, we seek to obliterate antinomies, contradictions, paradoxes and the like. We always want to present a better system that corrects the mistakes of its predecessors, while at the same time tipping its hat to thier labors. Thus, it is a false charge to us to say “we ignore” or are “arrogant” of church history. Or, that, somehow, we show impugnity to God's Providence. Last I checked, God is still “guiding” His Church. He didn't stop guiding it in the 17th century! There are many areas the church needs to work out its Deposit of Faith (Scriptures), and we are in a rich place, having two thousand years of theology to draw from! Praise the Lord!
So, this is a daunting task. We believe in the framework, and we seek to interpret the Scriptures within what we believe is so clearly taught: Jesus returned again in that generation, raised the dead, emptied Hades, swallowed up the Death, banished Satan, and now rules as God, all in all, over all His enemies. What a vision this has to offer to an already glorious church and her history…..Look at what we have accomplished in history so far: imagine what we can accomplish once this error is corrected by the Bible; a wide open future with our enemies under our feet – and being convinced from the Bible that the worst is behind us…….The worst has been crushed. Don't get me started here! Praise the Lord!!!
Sam,
To assert Q. 54 and 57 refute this view of Christ's parousia is not to demonstrate it. In fact, I would say it necessitates such a view. I was not going to reply, but I noticed someone “liked” your reply, which gives me the impression that there may be some who are ignorant about the Heidelberg Catechism and would just take your bare assertion as a correct assessment of the position and the Catechism.
With deference,
Vince
Vince,
Please show where “parousia” is attached to the “incarnation”.
Please show where “parousia” is not attached to “he shall come again to judge the living and the dead” (Q.52 – error, I said 54 above, and meant 52). Whereas in I Cor. 15 is it attached.
Q. 57 explicitly contains the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead corpse. Now, last I heard, you have I Cor. 15 fulfilled in A.D. 70. This would be impossible in the light of Q. 57. It can't be done, Vince, and you have not demonstrated “how” it can be done other than coming on here and saying, “it can,”. Okay. Prove it. Prove that Q. 57 has not been answered in full yet, but I Cor. 15 is fulfilled, and the Parousia BEGAN with the Incarnation. Please…….we are all waiting
Sam,
My understanding is that the crucial element within the System of Preterism is the idea that God desires to faithfully communicate the concept of time to His creatures. This element drives us to test Orthodoxy in many areas, such as the Resurrection of the Dead. The Postmillennial camp has already made this “time” case for us. But, to stay within Orthodoxy, this comes at the price of properly connecting events together in time. That is to say, they have two Second Comings of Christ. The Amillennialists, on the other hand, rightly insist that there is only one Second Coming of Christ (AD70 is merely a type of the Second Coming in an elaborate double fulfillment scheme). But, of course, this comes at the price of properly understanding that God desires to faithfully communicate time to us.
Why is it that the Postmillennial crowd has been unable to convince their Amillennial brethren and vice versa? I would suggest that they each are accusing the other of exegetical error. Preterism solves this exegetical dilemma between these two camps. The concept of time is preserved and there is only one Second Coming. However, it come at the price of Orthodoxy rather than exegesis.
If the Postmillennialists are unwilling to admit that the scriptures only teach one Second Coming, per the Amilleniallists, what could we possibly argue that would convince them? Apparently, the fact that we agree with Postmillennialists with respect to time is not enough.
martin
Sam,
Good comments. I agree with you on the Westminster standards and their position. I think Vince is in a tough spot. Hey, Brother Vince. :)
I agree wholeheartedly, of course, on the analogia fidei, and the rub of the matter as far as the preterist vs. (for example) the Reformed foundational texts. This is exactly the point at which preterism would need full investigation (i.e. refutation) if it were to be taken seriously at an academic and theological level. If the time statements (of the NT) provide the clear texts, then they are in a position to guide the interpretation of the resurrection, judgment, and NH/NE. This is a justification for more novel views on resurrection in 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor 5, and the host of eschatological passages, because to do otherwise would be to undermine the faith in the unity and intelligibility of the scriptures.
For that reason, I believe it worthwhile to critique not just the interpretation of certain passages. Instead it should be upon the weighing of the preterist hermeneutic against the body of evidence, for example, the ability to apply this hermeneutic equally to the OT (where I have proposed a breakdown for the preterist approach). Are there more texts internally strained by the hermeneutic or put at peace (e.g. for preterists: Is there any evidence internally that Paul's focus in I Cor 15, the culminating chapter, and one most would say gets to the foundation of the problems in the Corinthian church, is fundamentally about Jew/Gentile relations? In Romans and Galatians absolutely – it is explicit. But in Corinth, is it reasonable to propose this as the issue? Provided for example, not response. :))
I think we agree on where the engagement should be. Thanks again. Great posts, all. Peace, Brothers (ans Sisters).
James
Martin,
Good points.
James,
You will notice my reference to Daniel. I am now utterly convinced of Full Preterism on the basis of OT prophecy, not NT time texts. I think the major shift here is that where Hays calls for NT “reinterpretation” we say no. Paul did not “reorient” or “reinterpret” the Prophets to “fit” the Christian Gospel under a hubris of “progressive revelation.” If this is not the case, then the time texts of the NT ARE what the OT taught that generation to expect. In other words, the time texts are the resultant message due to other factors that were being seen as coming to pass. If these things were being fulfilled (not reinterpreted), then the logical message would have been, “the kingdom of God is at hand.”
We can see that for the Gospel writers, the “resurrection of the dead” figured into this in the four pericopies of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Resurrection was one of the questions. I cannot find how the OT would have taught the coming kingdom, then, thousands of years later, the resurrection of the dead. The kingdom of God message was the message of Restoration/Regeneration/Resurrection.
I am not impressed with what the academies are saying in the majority. I do know what they are saying, but they leave us more confused as well, saying “it is fulfilled” on one hand, and “it is not” on the other. They do so based on their own prejudice. It matters not if this “already/not yet” scheme “strains” certain texts (every system, I suppose, strains something somewhere). These matters are what has given rise to Full Preterism in the first place. If the already not yet had it worked out, we would not be here! It's part of the problem. Anyhow…..see ya Sunday, James!
Sam,
Understood. Looking forward to Sunday as well!
James
Thanks for explaining that some, Sam.
Parousia is attached to the incarnation: 2 Peter 1:16, and possibly 1 Thessalonians 2:19. Also see
John 1:14, Matthew 1:23, 28:20, 2 Timothy 4:17, 4:22,etc.
I agree that the sign of the “Parousia” of Christ is at the end of the age, the Day of the Lord. Christ will also be present with regard to His humanity in a future coming. I no longer believe that all of the events of 1 Corinthians 15 are past events in time. I took some time studying, and I shook that one off about a couple months ago. Thanks for again for your response Sam. I really admire your zeal for the Scriptures, but I am not on board with you on this one.
Vince
Sam/Martin/James:
Excellent stuff! I wish this was its own thread! Thanks all! (You too, Vince, even though I hold to a different conclusion than you do!)
Vince, you said “Realized Preterism holds that the Parousia (not the second coming) “began” in the Incarnation.” Is this what you believe now? If so, can you give me a more detailed explanation of what “realized preterism” entails?
2 Peter 1:16 refers to the transfiguration and not to the Parousia. I’ve heard some dispensationalist’s try to explain “Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” by saying it referred to the transfiguration, but this is one of the reasons I left Futurism…it is a weak argument. Why say “which shall not taste of death” for an event that was a mere six days afterwards (Mat 17:1)?
In fact I looked up each of the scriptures you provided and as far as I could tell none of them supported a Parousia that began during Christ’s ministry. I am at a loss at trying to understand the basis for your position.
Patrick,
Thanks for connecting with me. Sam, please have some patience with me, I do not mean to steal any attention from your post. You should know I have respect for you and am not here to challenge you or detract from you, I only interjected where I thought you had misrepresented a position unfairly and then to defend myself.
2 Peter 1:16 uses the word “parousia” and applies it to their realization of this during His first presence of the Incarnation. Yes, Peter is speaking of the transfiguration and this was realized during the Incarnation and not ad 70. I deliberately appealed to this verse because I earlier cited the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 47 which speaks of the “parousia” of Christ in terms of His “majesty” among other things. The rest of the Scriptural appeals I made speak of the manifestation of the presence and glory of God during Christ’s Incarnation realized in events of history such as in the virgin birth, being with us unto the end of the age (the sign of His parousia), being present with His Apostles and our spirit. There are other applications we could make, but this will do.
I agree with “Realized Preterism” on this. I began with fundamentals and I am building upon them with care. I am calling my position Preterism Realism because I am trying to take heed to some philosophical inferences that are made from theology proper, predestination, eternity, and providence, and to not think of the apocalyptics as always temporal predictions. My position is dogmatic. I am writing a volume about this now, but it will take many months before I am finished. If you want to chat, sometime, I could e-mail you my cell number and we could chat.
Your brother,
Vince
Patrick,
Thanks for connecting with me. Sam, please have some patience with me, I do not mean to steal any attention from your post. You should know I have respect for you and am not here to challenge you or detract from you, I only interjected where I thought you had misrepresented a position unfairly and then to defend myself.
2 Peter 1:16 uses the word “parousia” and applies it to their realization of this during His first presence of the Incarnation. Yes, Peter is speaking of the transfiguration and this was realized during the Incarnation and not ad 70. I deliberately appealed to this verse because I earlier cited the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 47 which speaks of the “parousia” of Christ in terms of His “majesty” among other things. The rest of the Scriptural appeals I made speak of the manifestation of the presence and glory of God during Christ’s Incarnation realized in events of history such as in the virgin birth, being with us unto the end of the age (the sign of His parousia), being present with His Apostles and our spirit. There are other applications we could make, but this will do.
I agree with “Realized Preterism” on this. I began with fundamentals and I am building upon them with care. I am calling my position Preterism Realism because I am trying to take heed to some philosophical inferences that are made from theology proper, predestination, eternity, and providence, and to not think of the apocalyptics as always temporal predictions. My position is dogmatic. I am writing a volume about this now, but it will take many months before I am finished. If you want to chat, sometime, I could e-mail you my cell number and we could chat.
Your brother,
Vince