On this edition of TNM Gene interviews former "Full Preterist" Roderick Edwards.Here is a link to the article that Gene referenced: Article by Paul Manata
Try GoToMeeting for 45 days!Visit GoToMeeting to start your free trial today.
If you want to download this show for free you will
have to subscribe to the podcast from our homepage.
(Click here if you want instructions on how to subscribe to podcast)
The CD quality files are available for .98 each at Unchained Radio
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
have to subscribe to the podcast from our homepage.
(Click here if you want instructions on how to subscribe to podcast)
The CD quality files are available for .98 each at Unchained Radio
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
49 comments:
This interview was very encouraging to my soul. In spite of the fact that Roderick is a good thinker and has had many good things to say on several different topics, I have not been able to recommend his materials in the past due to his heretical Full Preterist views. However, hopefully I'll be able to do so after he's cleaned his site up a bit from the Full Preterist influence. Thanks for bringing him on the show and hopefully those at The Narrow Mind will be able to encourage him as he gets hammered by FPs.
What exactly did Roderick recant? He mentioned universalism and antinomianism, etc., none of which are inherent within preterism. Preterists did not invent universalism. And even AS A PRETERIST, Roderick said he combated these things.
Does Roderick now affirm a future, "final" coming? Does Roderick now affirm that all corpses will be raised from the ground at the end of history?
hmmmm...interesting. Roderick was just on my show just weeks ago, even promoting it. Amazing how quickly this all changed, within a matter of days.
Preterist debates aside, anyone paying any attention can see this is just a ploy for attention.
Folks, the REAL reason Rod won't hang with us anymore is because we don't give him the attention he thinks he deserves. Notice, who called who to get this particular show going.
Roderick's decision has nothing to do with doctrine, per se, but his character clashing with other prets who don't put up with his childish baloney and drive for attention.
I have many non-full pret friends. My best friend is a premillennialist. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that Rod doesn't appear to be upfront here. This is coming across as a doctrinal change when in reality there doesn't appear to be any. Even Gene picks up on that at the end.
I ask again, what fundamental full pret doctrines has Rod recanted?
Let him affirm the end of history, with another coming of Christ and all corpses being raised from the dirt and then i'll eat my words.
jason
www.thereignofchrist.com
Actually Jason I mentioned far more than universalism & antinomianism -- yet I admit that I have directly been pointing to the foundation of FP which by its main representatives is built on "the law is destroyed" premise. Though this is not germane to FP, when mixed with FP gives off the toxic anti-doctrine dominant within FP today.
Prepare to eat your words because YES, I do affirm that the historic Christian Church HAS an eschatology & it includes a future Parousia & "bodily resurrection" of individuals -- not just "covenant Israel" as FP like Don Preston advocates.
I was NOT on your show "promoting FP" -- I was on there SPECIFICALLY refuting antinomian/anticreedal/anticonfessional/private interpretation speculations that claim the Genesis account is only about the "covenantal creation" & not the cosmological creation. Get your facts straight Jason. But after that show, your mentor goes to the seat of this garbage & calls the cheif promoter of this garbage -- his "dear brother".
This is part of the problem. During the early church & Reformation there were "splinter-groups" advocating all manner of garbage even as happens within FP circles, but during both times those were MINORITY groups AND they were dealt with, NOT embraced as "dear brothers". Could you imagine if during the Reformation the MAJORITY voice was people like Thomas Muntzer, Michael Servetus, & the Anabaptist??? FP majority voice is the antinomians, the "covenantalist" (who make covenantal merely mean "spiritual"), & the universalists. If you believe different than that Jason, YOU are a minority withn FP.
Why do you guys keep trotting out this insinuation that this is about personal "attention"? Are you all suddenly magically endowed with Dr. Phil abilities? If I wanted to just get attention I would quickly jump on the opportunities coming my way but have been asking people like Dee Dee to wait before trying to build a theological relationship with me. Plus I moved this discussion to a completely OTHER website & didn't mention ANY website once on Gene's show. Plus, I privately rebuked a friend for posting my renouncement on other FP sites. I don't want "attention", I just want to undo some of the damage I have done by throwing in my lot with the garbage you & your buddies seem to all too well embrace or wink at.
My decision to renounce FP has EVERYTHING to do with doctrine. It is just that I see that it is the bad doctrine that drives the character-flaws & the character-flaws that drive the bad doctrine. So both need to be dealt with at the same time.
I'll soon be outlining SPECIFIC exegetical disputes I have with FP. Then you can decide if what I'm saying is merely "baloney". If it is, it won't have any impact on your cult.
What Gene "picks up on" at the end of the show is that it was not merely one thing that broke me away from your little cult -- it has been a long train of offenses which is yes, highlighted by the corrupt & corrupting character that is not just affecting a "spliter-group" among FP but affects its core proponents -- from those who actually have unchristian character to those who wink at it & yet embrace such as "dear brothers" without any call for them to repent.
FP with their "we're all in this together no matter what" attitude would even make the proud, boasting "tolerant" people of 1 Cor 5 blush.
Keep watching Jason.
--Roderick
"Actually Jason I mentioned far more than universalism & antinomianism -- yet I admit that I have directly been pointing to the foundation of FP which by its main representatives is built on "the law is destroyed" premise. Though this is not germane to FP, when mixed with FP gives off the toxic anti-doctrine dominant within FP today."
Which is it Rod? Foundation of FP or not germane to FP?
"Prepare to eat your words because YES, I do affirm that the historic Christian Church HAS an eschatology & it includes a future Parousia & "bodily resurrection" of individuals -- not just "covenant Israel" as FP like Don Preston advocates."
Of course the historic church affirms an eschaton with a resurrection of corpses. Duh. Who in the world denied that? But your "bodily resurrection" is a little vague. What "body" Roderick? Do you believe that your dead corpse will one day reanimate to join with your soul? Yes or no, Rod? If so, then so be it. That would be news to us all.
You know darn well that is EXACTLY one of the major sticking points Gene has with FP...so let's hear it. Yes or no. The listener's, FP or not, deserve direct, clear cut answers.
"I was NOT on your show "promoting FP"
I didn't say that. I said that you were promoting OUR SHOW. You put our ministry's logo (crest) on your site with a direct link. Next thing you know, the link is gone. Why? Did i change one iota within a week's time. No. You did. I haven't seen this much flip-flopping since a trip down to the beach.
"FP majority voice is the antinomians, the "covenantalist" (who make covenantal merely mean "spiritual"), & the universalists. If you believe different than that Jason, YOU are a minority withn FP."
There is more to life than the INTERNET Rod. You google up 10 names and think they speak for the majority of Preterism? That is insane. Again, you have become the very thing you despise - some guy who thinks he's the voice for a movement. You're nuts if you think that the worldwide community of Preterism can be narrowed down to a handful of websites. Log off the computer for once Rod and get out in the air, come in contact with some skin.
"Why do you guys keep trotting out this insinuation that this is about personal "attention"? "
Simple, as i have already pointed out. Literally, within a matter of a week's time, you went from promoting our site and our radio show to bashing us. I don't care if i was pro-pret or not, that would get my attention. That would make me wonder about the stability of such a person...the fact that they literally flip-flop within a matter of days, especially since neither Sam nor I changed a lick within that time. We criticize politicians for doing that, why can't we criticize you?
If it's doctrinal Rod, then please, do tell what doctrinal changes Sam and I made that week that made you go from supporting us on your site to bashing me, now to the point of calling it my cult?
Please Roderick, do tell. What "doctrinal changes" have you made since the time you and I did three shows together criticizing Dee Dee Warren and Gene Cook? Please lay that out for us all.
Can't wait to do our show on Gene and Roderick Jason. Should be a good one =)
Major Premise:
Partial Preterists (at the very least) all say that Matthew 24:1-34 is a past AD70 event. They all say that it was "a" coming of Christ but not "the 2nd" coming of Christ because they hold to a future resurrection of the dead.
Minor Premise:
But Daniel 12:1 is quoted in Matthew 24:21, and Daniel 12 is the resurrection of the dead and says "at that time"
Matthew 24
21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Daniel 12
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Therefore:
Through logic I have proven Partial Preterism is a false doctrine, because Partial Preterism teaches that the "resurrection of the dead" occurs in the future, when the bible actually teaches it occurs within the events of Matthew 24:1-34 which all Partial Preterists say is a past event.
Mike,
I intentionally did not reply to your comment in the email that you sent me because I do not wish ti receive a barrage of spam promoting heresy. I will however respond to it here.
1. Biblical doctrine is not established on the basis of logical syllogisms alone. If that were the case we (orthodox Christians) would have to deny sola scriptura.
2. The orthodox method of interpretations is that scripture interprets scripture. More specifically, the New (scripture) interprets the Older (scripture). You are employing the same error as the paedo-baptist in your backward "analogy of faith".
3. Your logical syllogism fails because it assumes to much. It assumes that because that "at that time" refers to a moment in time, namely 70AD whereas it can be scripturally demonstrated that "that time" can, and does, refer to the "time" of the NC (i.e the last days)
4. I have no further interest in discussing this subject. Your position in my mind is less of an option than Mormonism. You are welcome to call into the show on Open Phones Friday if you don't mind being publically humiliated.
What you really need is to repent and believe the scriptures.
With all due respect,
Gene
On Dec 26th, Roderick's website stated:
"Some people have been asking me if I am saying that I am returning to "Futurism" (belief that Jesus is coming in the future & most prophecies are still unfulfilled) -- No I am not, it is not possible for me to honestly return to futurism. Some people have asked me if I am turning to "Partial-Preterism" (belief that AD70 did mark "a coming" of Jesus in judgment but that there will still be a future coming of Christ) -- No, I don't see that as viable either, especially how partial-preterist often handle the Olivet Discourse, specifically how they tend to split up Mt 24 at verse 36 as being some past & some future. What then? Shall I turn to "Preterist Idealism"? (a new invention by Todd Dennis, of preteristachive.com which seems little more than over-application, hyper-individualism with a huge dose of personal/private interpretative hermeneutics, having Christ constantly returning to each individual) -- No, I have no intention leaving one man's bandwagon for another man's bandwagon. Besides, I have not seen much better character from the founder of PretIdealism as I have seen from the main proponents & would-be trademark holders of "Full Preterism" -- that is a red-flag right there."
"1. Biblical doctrine is not established on the basis of logical syllogisms alone. If that were the case we (orthodox Christians) would have to deny sola scriptura."
That's not what Mike did.
It is logic AND Scripture, unless of course, you deny the validity of logic in all cases.
WCF 1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Gene, just so we are extremely clear, that's what Mike and I adhere to. Explicit teaching and deduced propositions.
Do you have a problem with that?
Gene "at that time" is confined to the great tribulation period. It is confined by Matthew 24:21, AND 34 THIS GENERATION. Case closed buddy =) Unless you now also say generation does not mean generation, and the great tribulation is still future - but you would be the ONLY proclaiming PP that says that - LOL =)
Gene Cook "I hold to all the time texts"
Phillipians 3
21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. <= RESURRECTION
Phillipians 4
1Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends! 4Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. <= TIME TEXT
Acts 24 Youngs Literal
15having hope toward God, which they themselves also wait for, [that] there is about to be a rising again of the dead, both of righteous and unrighteous; <= REURRECTION AND TIME TEXT
And here they come...talk about people who desire "attention". Look how many posts already from these same guys. They know FULL WELL I haven't "flip-flopped" in a matter of days. It has been a 5 year process of finally getting sick of FP constant poison (as displayed by the behavior of the guys who have responded thus far). After the show with Sam Frost & Jason Bradfield, Sam goes to the main promoter of the very garbage ("covenantal creation") & calls him a "dear brother". THAT is what changed in a matter of 1 day Jason. You guys are constantly speaking out of both sides of your mouths.
I will be posting a detailed basis for why FP is flawed. It is like mixing certain chemicals together -- perhaps alone there is no danger but together it sets off an odorless fume that can kill -- fortunately in this case the effects of FP, the "odor" is the flawed-character & should wake anyone up to the fact there is something amiss. Flee from it as fast as you can Christians!
Lastly, for a guy who is trying to accuse that I have renounced my affiliation with his cult for mere attention, I find it ironic that Jason's first post contained his website address...(the only person to post his website here) sheesh.
P.S. Gene -- you will soon have even more barrages here as these guys (if true to their form) will send emails to their buddies trying to show off ther second-hand-bookstore "logic" lessons. And don't be fooled by their quoting of Scripture for they wrest the Scriptures as well as Arius.
Wow Rod. You really have sunk low. This really saddens me...seriously.
There is a simple reason why i posted the link...so that people can check sources if they'd like.
FOR EXAMPLE: They can go to our site, read comments, check the show, etc., and see that Sam did not change in a matter of a day because he never attacked Tim's salvation to start with.
Speaking out of both sides would be Sam saying he wasn't a brother and then turning around a calling him a brother. Sam never did that.
Roderick, is this what you will resort to now...making STUFF UP?!?
Also, i see nothing but mere assertions again about my doctrine. Nothing of substance.
Why did you not answer my extremely straight forward question about the bodily resurrection?!?
Perhaps answering it would reveal that you're still a FP after all, at least according to Gene's definitions.
What are you hiding Rod? Sounds sneaky to me.
If you're recanting a preterist view of bodily resurrection, what do you believe now? Wouldn't you have already got all this worked out before supposedly "recanting"?
Again, doesn't matter what side of fence anyone is on...this should seem suspicious to anyone.
What flawed character am i demonstrating now Rod? Are you telling me i'm flawed for posting a link to my site? Am i flawed for pasting direct quotes from your site which indicate the opposite of what you're implying on the show? Am i flawed for insisting that you answer a direct question about the resurrection?
Since when was it a flaw to respond to a thread centered on a radio show done to make us look like kooks? Who brought the whole topic up?
You guys started it...what, do you think you're some elect, holier than thou, beyond reach teachers of the law?!?!
My, my, you truly have sunken.
Same-o same-o tactics from the FP
Insinuate things about people (like: "Roderick is just trying to get attention"), then when it is shown THEY are the ones starving for attention (look at the time frames between yours & Mike's posts) -- they suddenly want to recoil.
Sam's flip-flop comes in not in his questioning or not questioning ones salvation -- but when a "brother" is in dreadful error he is hardly a "dear brother" anymore than "drunken uncle Charlie" should be embraced as a "dear brother" while he is still in the midst of his actions. This coddling sends mixed signals but then again as you said, Sam hasn't changed -- sending mixed messages is his trademark & he even calls himself an "ecumenicist" (which it typically another term for "liberal"). No one mentioned "salvation" or not -- who are you now? Virgil Vaduva?
I've already admitted, right there on the radio show that I am working out my eschatology but I don't need to have it all worked out to realize FP is an error. Do you keep eating the same spoiled food that would make you sick before you decide to eat something different?
The only "suspcious" activity here is yours. Remember, you have tried to paint me as a mere "attention" getter yet YOU are the one posting links to your site. You have tried to act like I have no exegetical reason for my renunciation of FP yet when I put forth those reasons, you & your pals act like is only advocated by a "splinter-group" -- something you know is untrue.
And lastly, "you guys started it" by continuing to promote FP & endorse directly & indirectly the worst of elements within FP.
If I have "sunk" I have only come down from the pedestal of pride which is apparent with FP (& with yours & Mike's posts even here). Rather let us diminish & Christ be glorified.
Again, I am putting together a detailed article on my EXEGETICAL dispute with FP. You can keep pretending my renunciation is otherwise but it will be clear.
Still nothing on the resurrection...hmmm..
Again, it's a simple yes or no.
Do you, Roderick, affirm now that Christ will return at the end of history to resurrect all corpses from the ground and reunite them with their souls?
Yes or no, Rod. You can save the exegetical details for later. A simple yes or no would reveal a whole lot for now.
Jason, I realize you guys are in full damage control mode & must do everything to shoot me down before I get too far off the reservation. You tried impugning my credibility with the "Roderick is just trying to get attention" bit but when that became obviously untrue you have to keep trying to make something stick.
Well, let me say this again as I admitted on the radio show. I am coming off of 15 years in your little deluded cult so it is of course going to take me some time to reexamine things without the influence of those errors.
I can say one thing, historic Christianity has advocated that Christ's return is yet future AND that there is a bodily resurrection of the believers. Now, I have to reconcile that but you...you have impugned God's sovereignty by claiming 2000+ years of Christians have been wrong & suddenly you & your small group of arrogant people are here to set it straight. You go against historic creed & confession which is the very voice of Christian interpretation of Scripture (rather than your "private interpretation" & personal creed).
I'm trying to be honest & deal with these issues. You have the luxury of not being honest & rather, just making stuff up as you go.
But thank you for asking. Try again.
blah, blah. blah.....
Notice folks, Rod still will not answer the question.
Instead, he keeps reminding me what the historic church affirmed.
DUH!
As far as your "creed" comment, all i have to do is point people to the show you and i did against Gene Cook and Dee Dee Warren where we handled that quite well.
You know, as im thinking here...Rod, you really have yourself in a pickle.
Think about this for a second. I've asked you a very simple and direct question about the "bodily" resurrection. If you say that you affirm the historical view (all corpses coming out of the ground), then it would reveal a complete about-face that you have taken within a matter of days. It wouldn't prove that you were right or wrong, but it does reveal some unstableness on your part.
But if you say you don't affirm the historical view, which is what everything else we've seen from you indicates, then you would reveal that in actuality you're still a hyper-preterist. You are still denying an essential, orthodox teaching...the one folks like Gene get all hot and bothered about.
There's pickle number 1.
And notice, you won't answer the question. Instead, you go on your typical tirade about how loony and debase FP's are.
But wait a second....
If the mental state of full preterists is what you say it is, then that would also apply to the last 15 years of your life, WHICH MEANS, that it was actually a GOOD thing that people like myself, Sam, Bennett, Virgil, etc., did not jump on board with you 100%.
If what you are saying is true, that FPs twist and distort everything to where now, nothing i say will be tolerated, then you just removed any grounds for complaining about us not latching on to your ideals.
It was actually a good thing that we did not embrace more lunacy by following you all the way.
See Rod, because you have forsaken the old faithful paths of scripture and logic and have instead went down this emotional one, you've cornered yourself straight into irrationalism.
And what really saddens me is that now you're going to run around and promote this irrationalism and call that "historic Christianity".
G. Clark is rolling over in his grave.
Since it is obvious there are certain people for whom FP is their entire life & they must defend & promote it at all cost -- there is no talking to those people. They will do everything to impugn the validity of anyone that dares speak against their beloved "we're all in this together, dear brothers" cult.
I post this as my last message on this board on this topic. This is a message I sent another "unstable" person as we are now being accused that is looking for a way out of the cult of FP. I hope it helps others.
I am sorry I have confused you but I am trying to be as honest as possible with my faith. To me the linch-pin is the Sovereignty of God. Does the Sovereign God really not preserve His Church & true plan for over 2000+ years? Are we really to believe God has allowed the Church to be wrong on this matter for so many years...from the very beginning of the Church even? Ed Stevens thought he got around this by introducing a first-century rapture. Others think they can get around it by "covenantalizing/spiritualizing" everything.
I can no longer ignore that the Church as a historical entity has indeed had an eschatology & that is one that has Christ returning in the future & the resurrection occuring in the future. How do I dare set myself against billions of believers over centuries? Who am I???
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -- 2 Pet 1:19-21
Yet we are being told we alone have understood the truth, we alone have unlocked the secret? The FP appeal to the Reformers as their model yet they fail to tell us that the mantra of "Sola Scriptura" did not negate the great cloud of witnesses through out Christian history. The Reformers did not go against the historic creeds & confessions of the Church -- as a matter of fact they used the creeds & confessions to bolster their claim that Scripture -- not popes & councils are our guide. Then the Reformers proceeded to write more confessions which detailed what they believed Scripture is saying, in a systematic way. So, FP's anticreedal/anticonfessional mantra is NOT modeled from the Reformers. The FP are "private interpreters" & are completely disconnected from the historic Church & her long cherished beliefs. I can no longer ignore that.
Honestly at the moment I'm not sure where I will land on eschatology. I might have removed myself from FP but it will take awhile to remove FP from me. Please bear with me.
In Christ,
--Roderick
One of the funny things about full heretics is that if you don't answer them quickly, as Kenneth Gentry correctly said, you must "die the death of a thousand e-mails." Don't these people have lives? Of course, they don't need to go to work to earn money anyways, since we are already in the new creation now anyways, according to them.
wow John, you're pathetic.
1) Ask yourself why we're here. I wouldn't be here if Gene had not done a show against full preterists.
Again, there is that holier-than-thou, self-righteous attitude that believes you can make public statements about people and be untouchable.
Heaven forbid anyone criticize your claims, o' holy one.
2) Read Is 65, especially verse 22. Isaiah spoke of working within the new creation.
You don't understand Isaiah nor full preterism.
So tell us which view God preserved Roderick...postmill, amill, or premill?
Queen Neb,
(1) My name is Josh. I'm confused--how could you make such a simple mistake on my name when you are now supposed to be "perfect" in this now "glorified" creation?
(2) It seems to me that they "holier-than-thou" attitude is really in the heretics. "We heretics aren't really heretics--but by the way we know better than 2,000 years of godly men and creeds and confessions! Our interpretation is REALLY the right one!" Who's holier than thou?
I guess you don't have a life either, seeing how quickly you responded.
Welcome to the club.
-----------
Jason! Your plead to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How the Jews...how the Turks will exult to hear Christians discuss how they've been wrong all these years. Jason! How can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy orthodox faith...instituted by Christ the perfect Lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the Apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the church in which all our fathers believed until death, and gave to us as an inheritance and which now we are forbidden by the Pope and the Emperor to discuss, lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Jason, answer candidly and without horns, do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain?
-------
Pope John. Pope Josh. Whatever...
-------
WCF 1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
WCF 31:4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.(1)
-------
That's what i believe. What do you believe?
-------
Isaiah 65:17-25 17 "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. 19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. 24 Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. 25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.
Funny how you try to set yourself up as another Martin Luther when the Reformers believed in Sola Scriptura, which is not what you believe. You believe in SOLO Scriptura. The Reformers never believed that the perspicuity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura ever meant that it should be interpreted outside of the mind of the Church and the church community.
If you want to play the story and dialogue games, I can do that too:
Jehovah's Witness: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Mormon: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Oneness Pentecostal: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Church of Christ: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Open Theist: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Full Preterist: "Convince me from Scripture, and not 2,000 years of the mind of the Church. Who needs creeds and confessions? SOLO SCRIPTURA!!!"
Simply put, if it walks like a heretic-duck and quacks like a heretic-duck . . .
Josh,
You can revise things all you want. Perhaps that's why you refer to yourself as a "moderate" when it comes to creed subscription.
The WCF is not ambiguous. I know some vanTillians like to make things that way, but it's not.
WCF 31:4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.(1)
It's really just that simple.
king neb asked:
"So tell us which view God preserved Roderick...postmill, amill, or premill?"
The view that God preserved is
1. Future physical return of Christ,
2. Future bodily resurrection and 3. Future day of judgment.
Which, by the way, postmil, amil and premil all hold to.
"its just that simple"
Gene
Right Gene. Men preserved these through synods/councils that "may and have erred"; therefore, these confessions are not "off-limits", unless of course you equate confessions with God-breathed Scripture.
After clearly defining the books of Scripture, the WCF states, "WCF 1:2 All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life."
In contrast, "WCF 31:4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."
Scripture = Rule of Faith
All Synods/Councils = Not Rule of Faith, but helps
Again, really simple stuff here.
If Scripture (a) is equivalent to all synods/councils (a), then we would have a direct contradiction in the confession, for A cannot be both B (rule of faith) and non-B (not rule of faith) at the same time and in the same sense.
But of course, this is not what the WCF is saying. They didn't equate Scripture with synods/councils.
There is a clear distinction.
And this, of course, begs the question of what the framers of these confessions based their belief on, ie. what Scriptures explicitly and/or by good and necessary consequence infer beliefs 1, 2, and 3?
Tell us Gene. What did the early church think about Matthew 24 and 25.
What about the Westminster divines?
Tell us what John Lightfoot thought about 2 Peter 3.
Here's another simple point: Your creeds are wrong on those items.
And for you logically challenged folks, that is not the same thing as denying the whole creed.
Really, there's nothing at all hard to understand in that statement.
Even better, i can demonstrate why from the Scriptures.
But oh wait, Gene will not allow that. Gene won't enter a public debate. Why?
Because he doesn't really believe the distinctions the WCF makes between Scripture and synods/councils.
Further, i imagine that it's quite an embarrassment that though you can get a large group to affirm 1, 2, and 3, you really don't know why.
2 Peter 3 can't be used anymore. Owens and Lightfoot knocked that out of the park.
C.H. Spurgeon (1865)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354).
John Owen (1721)
'It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state
John Lightfoot (1859)
2 Peter 3:13: 'We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth.' The heaven and the earth of the Jewish church and commonwealth must be all on fire, and the Mosaic elements burnt up; but we, according to the promise made to us by Isaiah the prophet, when all these are consumed, look for the new creation of the evangelical state" (vol. 3, p.453)
Gary DeMar (1996)
"John Owen, the Puritan scholar, knows his Bible better than most of the rest of us, and he tells us exactly where the Old Testament foretells a 'new heaven and earth."
"Owen is right on target, asking the question that so many expositors fail to ask: Where had God promised to bring "new heavens and a new earth" The answer, as Owen correctly states, is only in Isaiah 65 and 66 - passages which clearly prophesy the period of the Gospel, brought in by the work of Christ." (ibid., p. 495)
"Because of what may be called the 'collapsing universe' terminology used in this passage, many have assumed that St. Peter is speaking of the final end of the physical heaven and earth, rather than the dissolution of the Old Covenant world order." (Last Days Madness, p. 540)
David Chilton (1987)
"Moreover, the phrase heaven and earth in these contexts does not, as Owen pointed out, refer to the physical heaven and the physical world, but to the world-order, the religious organizations of the world, the "House" or Temple God builds in which He is worshipped." (Days of Vengeance., p. 544)
Now the irony is - why don't these guys see this event as a past event - LOL =)
Revelation 20
11Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
There you go again Mike. Trying to confuse people with details. How dare you. Details don't matter. All that matters is what a synod decided in the 4th century.
Get in line o' arrogant and pale one.
We have enough creedal security blankets for everyone.
Josh,
Here's the whole trial:
http://www.thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=333&Itemid=153
Gene got a kick out of my "Reformed Gangstas" rap...maybe he'll like this one as well.
( ;
Nebbie,
You still need to answer what I mentioned about the fact that Luther's and the Reformers' understanding of Sola Scriptura is nothing like yours. You misunderstand historic Protestantism.
king neb said...
WCF 1:6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
WCF 31:4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.(1)
-------
That's what i believe. What do you believe?
***************
PM: So you believe that 1:6 could possibly be in error? Nice one! Boy, I sure wish I had a "glorified" mind just like you, Neb.
You're a genius Mananas. I never thought of that.
You got me. I'm now going to recant "full preterism"; do a show with Gene Cook, but not actually recant the full preterist framework; and complain about the irrationality of preterists while embracing new friends like Josh who brilliantly point out that preterism must be wrong because the last two he saw were sickly and pail.
You got me.
----------
Seriously though, of course the Westminster Confession "may err"...hello...it's not a "God-breathed" document.
However, those of us who read the Bible know that the WCF is on point here.
You don't seem to understand the difference between something being "probable" versus something being "necessarily" wrong.
Scripture is necessarily right. No question.
The WCF, as well as any other writing outside of God's Word MAY be wrong, but not necessarily.
On this point, the WCF has it right. On most points, the ecumenical creeds have it right.
I've never questioned the possibility that the WCF could be wrong here. It just so happens that it is not.
--------
Furthermore, none of what you said actually tells us what you believe. Why is it that you won't shoot it straight with us?
I'm noticing a pattern here.
Sad.
Anyone else been able to find out from Rod what his view on the Resurrection is?
Neb,
Should someone who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ be considered a heretic? Why or why not?
Neb,
You hold this position:
[1] A confession or a statement made by mere men "may" err.
Now, take the Confession's 1.6. Call it (*).
Since (*) is a statement made by men, in a confession, then (*) may err due to what you told us you believe by holding to [1].
Now, you can say that (*) is in the Bible. Okay, but it is also in the confession. And thus according to [1], (*) "may err."
You said, "You don't seem to understand the difference between something being "probable" versus something being "necessarily" wrong."
How so? I understand it very well, actually. You came here and said that (*) "may err." You said you believed the conjunction of [1] and (*). This means that you think that (*) "may err." Since it "may" err, then it doesn't *necessarily* have to be in error, but it "may." But if what you said is true, then (*) cannot err. If (*) is necessarily true, then it is impossible that it "may" err.
You said, "Scripture is necessarily right." But you don't know that given that you're a Clarkian. Sorry.
You wrote, "The WCF, as well as any other writing outside of God's Word MAY be wrong, but not necessarily."
First, you don't know that as a Clarkian. You can't "deduce" it.
See, I knew you were confused. Now, if you are saying that it is true that (*) "may" err, then (*) cannot be "necessarily right." Here's an example of something "necessarily right:" A triangle has three sides. Now, that definition "may" not be false. Likewise, that it is *possible* for (*) to be in error, means that it is possible that the Bible isn't all that you thought it to be.
Bottom line, you must hold that (*) "may" be in error. So, that's all I was saying. See, you said,
"I've never questioned the possibility that the WCF could be wrong here. It just so happens that it is not."
And so you can't say that (*) "is necessarily right." You see, I question the *possibility* that x ~(~x) could be wrong. But, you have just told us that it is *possible* that (*) could be false, thus it isn't "necessarily right."
You wrote:
"Furthermore, none of what you said actually tells us what you believe. Why is it that you won't shoot it straight with us?"
Well, yeah, Neb, that's because I am offering a reductio. A reductio uses premises from your interlocutor and makes the case from that information alone. When giving a reductio, I don't need to give my beliefs because the critique doesn't matter what my beliefs are. Like this, Neb:
You hold these two positions:
[H] This is the position called Hyper-preterism, ie., all eschatological prophecy has been fulfilled.
You also hold, this
[S] Scripturalism. This is your Gordon Clarkianism. That is, your conditions for knowledge are: S knows that P iff P is in Scripture or P is deducible from scriptural propositions.
So, what does the conjunction of [H] & [S] give us? An agnosticism, namely:
[A] Given [H] and [S], Neb cannot know that Jesus came back in 70 AD.
So, the argument is [H] & [S] --> [A]
That is, Neb, given your beliefs, how do you know that Jesus isn't a liar? Isn't that what Bertrand Russell asked? Now, perhaps you'll say that the proof that the Bible is correct is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. The problem there is that according to [S], you don't know that. So, you don't know that Jesus ever came back in judgment. Perhaps the Bible made a false prophecy? How would you know otherwise?
Or, how about this. You hold that:
[T] Time texts should be taken seriously.
Can [T] be *deduced* from Scripture? How does [T] fit in with [S]?
Looks like Neb's a joker. He can't know that Jesus fulfilled what he said he would do. For all neb knows, Jesus is another failed prophet. The Bible doesn't tell us that Jerusalem was destroyed. Thus Neb can't know it. The Bible doesn't tell us that Jesus came back for the second time, so Neb doesn't know that he did. Neb can *believe* it, but Neb doesn't know it. What follows:
If Neb doesn't know that Jesus fulfilled his prophecies about returning within a generation, then NEB doesn't know that Hyper-preterism is the case. Neb doesn't know that Jesus fulfilled his prophecies about his return. Therefore Neb doesn't know that Hyper-preterism is the case. QED.
~PM
"Should someone who rejected the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ be considered a heretic? Why or why not?"
Just so we are on the same page, how are you defining "heretic"?
Paul,
Scripture and the WCF are two categorically different things.
Your whole [1] and (*) setup is nothing more than a sneaky trick to equate the two, upon which to build your argument.
Maybe you do, but i don't treat Scripture and WCF as equal.
Try again.
Neb,
I mean, should they be considered non-Christians? Should they be considered as believing something which destroys the faith?
Yes, denying the deity of Christ and/or Trinity destroys the Christian faith. One thing it would do, just off the top of my head, is completely destroy the atonement.
And i would argue this from Scripture, regardless of what any confession/creed had to say about the issue. If it so happened that a confession agreed, praise God. If it so happened that no "orthodox" confession agreed, then so be it. That doesn't leave me in the dark as to what God said.
Hi Neb,
This is going to be slow and painful for you, as I can tell.
**********
king neb said...
Paul,
Scripture and the WCF are two categorically different things.
Your whole [1] and (*) setup is nothing more than a sneaky trick to equate the two, upon which to build your argument.
Maybe you do, but i don't treat Scripture and WCF as equal.
Try again.
**********
i) Unfortunatley, you don't know anything you just said since you can't deduce it from the Bible.
ii) You post is nothing bu an assertion. You don't interactw w/ my arguments, you simply assert. Now, your assertion might have more weight if this were a heretic friendly sight - perhaps at your site. But, seeing that most people here don't favor heretics, your say-so (especially the say-so of a man who "may err"), then you'll need to do more than assert.
iii) I never equated the two. Bottom line, (*) is _IN_ the confession. This makes (*) subject to err. You even agree to this. So, your position, as satted by you, is that (*) may err. That (you think) it is in Scripture too doesn't matter. That's because you have the same proposition being "necessarily right" as well as "may err." So, you have to believe that the same proposition may, and may not, err.
iv) Notice that Neb doesn't even bother to interact with the other argument I gave. So far I have proven, via internal critique, that Neb doesn't know that Jesus isn't a liar. Neb doesn't know that he fulfilled his prophecies. neb doesn't know that hyper-preterism is the case. So, given Neb's position, if he sincerely believes both hyper-preterism and Scripturalism, then he can't know that the Bible is true. Thus Neb's philosophy entails that he must be agnostic as to whether the Bible is true or not. Thus he must be agnostic as to whether it is God's word or not.
~PM
Whatever Paul. You repeat the same mantras over and over again. You've been doing this for years. Not interested in going back and forth with you.
I've stated very clearly what i believe and made the distinctions.
Nor would i affirm your [1] without qualification.
The WCF nor any other confession is the "rule of faith". It's really not that complicated.
And there are plenty of reformed men, notably men like Talbot from Whitefield, who see the Romanist tendecies in men like Gentry, Mathison, and so on.
carry on and have fun with your pudgy selfs.
(i'm assuming ya'll are pudgy, based on Josh's arguments)
( ;
Hi Neb,
"Whatever Paul," isn't an argument.
"You repeat the same mantras over and over again," isn't a rebuttal. For instance, if every time someone wrote in English this sentence: "I cannot write a word in English," and I told them that that was self-referentially incoherent, it wouldn't be an appropriate defeater-defeater for them to say, "Whatever Paul. You repeat the same mantras over and over again."
You said, "Not interested in going back and forth with you." Right, and if I held your position, I wouldn't be to thrilled about having to defend it either.
You wrote: "I've stated very clearly what I believe and made the distinctions." Right, and I countered your attempts at being "clear, rigorous, and cogent" (if you want to call it that). So, ball's in your court.
You wrote,
"Nor would i affirm your [1] without qualification.
The WCF nor any other confession is the "rule of faith". It's really not that complicated."
My "[1]" is this:
[1] A confession or a statement made by mere men "may" err.
What do you want to qualify? It's simply a reduction of what _you_ said you believed, namely:
WCF 31:4 All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
Thus you must admit that _this claim_ "may err":
(*) 1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.
ANYWAY Neb is STILL ignoring the rather PIERCING argument I have given against his conjoined beliefs in hyper-preterism and Clarkian Scripturalism.
The reader can take note that I have proven, from premises Neb accepts, that Neb must remain agnostic as to the infallibility of God's revelation.
Neb, here's a word of advice: Cogent counter-arguments are usually the best way to silence the opposition. That is, if I can appeal to that evil form of reasoning known as inductive reasoning, telling your opponent "Whatever" has never served as a good persuasive counter argument. I'd have thought you hyper-preterists would have been more apt to employ putative rational arguments in defense of your system rather than the comeback of bubble gum smacking, teeny boppers, viz., "Yah, like, whatever, I'm sooo sure, like, we've been over this, like, a thousand times, like, Ohmagosh, gag me with a spoon, you're soooo lame, I'm sure."
Neb, just so you know, I gave an argument against your hyper-preterism which shows that it holds no positive epistemic status for you. You are consigned to saying that you don't know whether it's the case or not. You are consigned to saying that you don't know if Jesus isn't a liar or not. You have asked for a refutation of your views, I gave you one. Now, my argument doesn't disprove hyper-preterism or Clarkianism, it just shows that you can't hold to the both and also say that you know that Jesus isn't a liar. That he came back to that generation is something you must remain agnostic about. So, you can either drop your Clarkianism or your Hyper-preterism, but you can't rationally (epistemologically speaking) hold to both.
If you change your views let me know and I'll help you out with other arguments against your position. It really shouldn't be that hard to see what the church has seen for the past two-thousand (and, if you count the resurrection passages in the OT the way they have been orthodoxically, then the time is longer) years. I'd be willing to help if you were open to it. But, if your heresy is like your old woobie, then I understand the hesitation in giving it up.
Neb,
You said that you would consider someone a heretic who denied the Trinity, because of your interpretation of the Bible. Now the Arian Jehovah's Witness comes to you and says "No--we are not heretics! We are interpreting the Bible correctly! Your view leads to tri-theism, so you are the heretic!"
You see Neb, it all comes down to this: You are saying that rejecting the Trinity is heresy because YOU say so. YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the right one. Forget that the Church for 2,000 years has said that rejecting the Trinity is heresy. So, we ironically have Pope Neb telling us what heresy is and what it isn't. But now we also have Pope Neb telling us that full preterism is legitimate, even though the Church has called it heresy from the very beginning.
I think I would rather listen to the Church rather than Pope Neb.
Josh,
This will be my last response.
I did not say that i "would consider someone a heretic who denied the Trinity, because of [my] interpretation of the Bible."
I said they would be heretical because THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.
Do you honestly think the Bible is that ambigious on this issue?
The deity of Christ is very clear. It doesn't take a vote to figure that out.
I suppose you'll tell us next that Christ's death is ambigious and that we need a council to explain that as well.
This is truly amazing. You have enough confidence in men (councils) to communicate clearly, but you don't have enough confidence in God's own Word to communicate clearly?!?!
Perhaps that was Adam's problem. He couldn't have possibly understood God's command...maybe he needed a synod to figure it out for him?
geessshhh.....
So much for the perpiscuity of scripture.
ya'll have fun here with your new friend in ambiguity land. Keep in mind, Roderick still remains ambigous himself as to what exactly he affirms.
He'll fit right in.
i'm out.
Nebbie,
I said you would be heretical BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.
Do you honestly think the Bible is that ambiguous on the issue of the Lord's return?
The future coming of Christ is very clear. It doesn't take a vote to figure that out.
This is truly amazing. You have enough confidence in yourself to communicate clearly, but you don't have enough confidence in God's preserving His Church and Her Mind from error for the past two thousand years to communicate clearly?!
Perhaps that was the Church's problem. She couldn't have possibly understood what our Lord meant, what the apostles meant, and what godly men and women have been saying for 2,000 years on the Second Coming. We needed the full preterists to figure that out!
Geesh......
So much for the perspicuity of Scripture.
So much for "on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it."
You have fun being your own Pope, arrogantly saying you know better than the mind of the Church and all these godly men and women for the past two thousand years. Tell us, why should we believe you and say, not an Arian heretic?
Oh I forgot, because Neb's interpretation is the right one! Bow to your new Pope Neb, everybody!
Hi Neb!
I'm still waiting for a response other than "Whatever, Paul." Do you have one, Neb?
Oh, Neb, Josh's concerns didn't land for you, huh? You wrote:
"I did not say that I 'would consider someone a heretic who denied the Trinity, because of [my] interpretation of the Bible.' I said they would be heretical because THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES."
The Arian says that you are heretical because THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES.
They then wonder why it's so hard for you to figure out. The Bible is CLEAR, after all.
So, they posit a great apostasy. "That explains how EVERYONE got it wrong."
Well now! Isn't this interesting? Hyper-preterists have done exactly the SAME THING!
J.S. Russell: "Well, the REAL Christians were all caught up in the rapture. This explains why they all got the resurrection, the second coming, &c., wrong." (But the ones left didn't get the deity of Christ, the deity of the Spirit, the inspiration of Scripture, the death of Christ for our sins, etc., wrong. Are those things more clear than hyper-preterism?)
Max King: "Oh, all the Christians bought into Hellenistic philosophies. It was a massive buy into apostate philosophies."
Neb just can't seem to wrap his head around these problems. Maybe that's because he got one of dem new fangled glory-fied minds?
He also has no answer or rebuttal to both of the arguments I offered him.
He also has no answer to my Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-preterism.
Neb doesn't need answers, though. he has his "Whatever Paul" ray-gun. Armed with that, he'll zap, zap, zap all my arguments.
For next time, Neb: Cogent counter-arguments are the best way to silence the critics.
Your "glorified" mind aint all that, hate to break it to ya.
Lastly, I wonder if Neb was typing all of his conversations with us in the buff? Did he know the difference between typing in the nude or with clothes on? If he did, then he still suffers from an effect of the fall: "Who told you that you were naked." So, Neb, make sure you're typing, and doing all your other daily activities, in the buff. Take those shame covering fig leaves off, my brother!
Check out my blog if you need some good quotes. I am trying to find as many quotes as possible to demonstrate the errors of this system.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/
Paul - somehow I am not surprised that you are not glorified yet =)
2 Corinthians 3: The Covenant Change / Glory of the New Covenant
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
The Old Covenant had GLORY but it was nothing compared to the New Covenant GLORY.
2 Corinthians 3 The Covenant Change / Glory of the New Covenant
16Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Does the Spirit that changed people into the image of the Lord dwell in dead corpses? Or was it dwelling in people who were covenantally dead (seperated from God)? Please note: They were being TRANSFORMED into the SAME IMAGE from GLORY (Old Covenant) to GLORY (New Covenant). If they are in the New Covenant then they have been TRANSFORMED into the Lord's IMAGE!
When was the inheritance expected? If it was expected at 70 AD then they were glorfied.
Compare Colossians 3 with Daniel 12. Colosians glorified and inheritance together. Daniel 12 inheritance and resurrection - AD 70.
Colossians 3
1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward.
Daniel 12
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. <= see Matt 24:21 Partial Preterists say that this is past But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?" 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." <= 70 AD10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. 11 "From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished <= Partial Preterists say that this is past and the abomination that causes desolation <= Partial Preterists say this is past is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 3 "As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance." <= Same inheritance as Colossians above
MB,
You have the same problem as your buddrow, Neb (I thought there was no king but Jesus? :-)
You told me that any extra-biblcial historical source will make for an unsound argument.
The problem:
You need histories reporting of the temple being destroyed and your hermeneutical assumptions to make your argument work. Neither of these are stated in the Bible, thus you are using an unsound hermeneutic (according to you) and you don't know that Jesus came back and did what he said he would thus showing he's not a false prophet (again, this inference is taken from your own position).
So, you can't know that the bible teaches hyper-preterism (since you can't find the hermeneutic you empoy in it, and, btw, so much the worse for the grammatical histoical method, can't appeal to extra biblical sources!), and you can't know that Jesus isn't a false prophet.
So your position leads you to not knowing that Christianity is true. So much the worse for your position. Toodles.
Post a Comment