Thursday, December 27, 2007

Unpreterizing Yourself: How did you get here?

As with any complex & precarious situation in which you might find yourself, one of the first things to help undo the situation is to determine how you might have gotten into it in the first place.

A pattern I have noticed within hyper-preterism is that almost all of them suffer from “rejection syndrome” -- this in its simplest terms means that they were already suffering from a complex of having been rejected by a mainline group. Allow me to elaborate.


Modern “Full Preterism” has its roots within the denomination of “Churches of Christ” (CoC) which by nature is a very “rejected” denomination by most of mainline Christianity. Keep in mind, I am not saying this as an “attack” on or insult toward CoC people as I count many CoC people as friends – but it is just a matter of fact that CoC (originally called “Campbellites” by its detractors) is often considered almost a “cult” by mainline Christianity since CoC grew out of the “Restoration Movement” as did other cults like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, & Pentecostalism. If you doubt this or it enrages you, please see these sources: (source #1, source #2)


So, with the rejection background CoC people are prime & prone for deviating further & further from any historical form of Christianity, indeed the Restoration Movement from which CoC hails has in common with the other cults, one specific element – all of these groups claimed to be “restoring” Christianity back to its first-century structure & practice. In this effort they tended to reject all historical creeds & confessions of the Catholic AND Protestant Church & in essence started from scratch even to the point of creating many of their own Bible versions to support their new theology, as the Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses did (Mormon = Book of Mormon, JW = New World Translation). The problem is, these groups were not really getting back to the first-century Church but rather they were innovating & creating their own version of what they thought or wanted the first-century Church to be.

Perhaps at this point a CoC reader is upset about the connection I am making, but again it is not an attempt to disparage because now I will hit closer to home with my own experience since I do NOT have a background within the CoC.

Another group to which hyper-preterism has appealed is some forms of Baptists (which is my background) & just as with the CoC, Baptists have a history of being anti-creedal & anti-confessional yet are still typically accepted within mainline Christianity & indeed in America, the Southern Baptist Convention is now the largest “Protestant” group. This maverick mentality again leaves the average Baptist susceptible to doctrinal perversion. I have experienced this first-hand as I was a practicing Baptist for over 12 years & I know during that time I was rarely taught much of Church history & how we progressed (or digressed depending on your perspective).

So, the pattern I see is that most hyper-preterists are ripe for accepting the belief because they are typically already half way there. They have a mindset of being rejected by the Church or perhaps even self-piously preservers of the “true” Church & thus of course the “true” teachings. Once a hyper-preterist begins to experience even further rejection such as how most hyper-preterist are rejected by even the CoC & the Baptists, it is not a far slide.

An ironic side effect of this rejection syndrome from which most all preterists suffer is their tendency to become even more combative. I say it is ironic because for all their talk of being “victorious” & preaching some extensive end of Death & Satan they tend to live a life of victim-hood – much the same as an injured & cornered animal, such as a family pet will lash out irrationally against even people that are attempting to help, so too do most hyper-preterists when people reach out to bring them back from their errors. They are anything but “victorious”.

As I conclude, I don't want anyone to misconstrue that I am advocating creeds & confessions over Scripture – it should be obvious that I am a strong advocate for Sola Scriptura but Sola Scriptura is not SOLO Scriptura – that is, Scripture has NEVER operated in a vacuum, it is true because it is true when presented in any environment. A creed & a confession is simply a collection of “I believe...” statements. The point is, that our “belief statements” should reflect & accord with Scripture thus EVERY person who calls themselves a Christian follows a creed or/& a confession but at issue is whether it is a personal/vague creed of their own making, a new innovation that departs from sound doctrine, or if it is a biblically-tested, time-tested, Church-tested (as in tested by the whole of Christian peers) belief?

There may be times & points at which to diverge from the majority of Christianity & from the historical Church but those times must be approached with the utmost care & even “fear”. It is no light thing to find yourself against the weight of Christian history. To say it has failed at some point does do harm to the Sovereignty of God & His ability to bring about His Will. This is one reason why the Restoration Movement was so odorous to mainline Protestants – the groups that were coming from the Restoration Movement were actually saying the Church & the Gospel had been “lost” & needed to be “restored”. Oh, what a charge against God who said that even the gates of hades would not prevail against the Church. (Mt 16:18)

Hyper-preterists are certainly not approaching with care & caution with their serious claim of being “reformers” & “restorers” of the Church. They too often blithely talk about “paradigm shifts” as they go about not just uprooting hay, wood, & stubble but actually attempting to pry up the very foundations of historic Christianity & putting in its place their “new kind of Christianity” which is completely disconnected from anything that came before.

31 comments:

Kurt said...

Roderick,

I'm sure that you contention about rejection syndrome et al is true for some, but to say that it is true for almost all of them?

You may simply be describing "the effects" (feeling rejected, embracing the idea of restoring, becoming a non-conformist by default in a status-quo Christian world) of people seeking the truth who find that Christian "orthodoxy" was not matching up with Christian "orthopraxy."

Looking for the answers do result in being rejected by status quo Christians, do result in striving to find/restore the truth of Scripture that is not be practiced today, and do result in the other "effects" you mentioned.

For those who are simply "seeking the truth" your descriptions are an effect, not the root cause.

Did I make sense?

Dusman said...

Roderick,

As I said on your website, I am again very encouraged to see this doctrinal change in you. I look forward to charitably interacting with you in the future as I believe you to be a good thinker who obviously desires to uphold the principle of Sola Scriptura vs. SOLO Scriptura. God bless!

Dee Dee Warren said...

Roderick!!! I am completely blown away (in a good way). Write me please. You have no idea how much I have prayed for this in your life.
And I want to repent for a wrong done in thought to you this morning - when I first heard about this I thought you were pulling a fast one and not being upfront. I am happy to say that I was wrong, and please forgive me for that uncharitable thought, though you would have never known about it. You and I have had some similar experiences with some hyperpreterists not dealing in an upfront manner, so my knee-jerk reaction was to automatically disbelieve that you had changed - I am glad I learned the lesson not to do so.

Beretta said...

I love the idea of this site - refuting full preterism. I just wish the site weren't called "un-preterist." Preterism is quite compatible with the denial of so called "full preterism."

Josh Brisby said...

Praise the Lord! A while back we had a few full preterists leave my church. I was grieved. I am so pleased to see the Lord has led you out of this dangerous heresy. Praise His holy Name! --Josh Brisby www.joshbrisby.blogspot.com

Kurt said...

Hey Josh,

Did they leave or were they forced out?

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

They left of their own accord. Had they stayed, they would have been confronted in the biblical way (Mt 18). If they would not have repented of their heresy, then they would have been excommunicated.

B.A.S. said...

Hi Roderick,

I just saw your blog for the first time. This is awsome! But I'll tell you what. The main problem w/ F.P. is the canonicity issue. There is no such thing as "new truth." God's truth is older than the hills, and if we preach it now, be assured that it has some historical continuity. Otherwise the church that Christ established has labored in vain. True, there has been some divergence among doctrinal teachings. However, the theory that our New Testament canon IS NO LONGER CURRENT is an absolute novelty. Show me where this ever taught prior to the early 19th century. It assumes that the direct applicability of New Testament canon ended in A.D. 70, and that now our business is to 'reconstruct' the truth through reason and logic. Thus the real truths of our faith are not in Scripture per se, but in the mouth of the interpreter. This leads us into 1): Gnosticism; 2): Rabbinism.
A dilemma: If a Christian doesn't have any knowledge of history, but relies on the Words of Eternal life alone (in a directly applicable sense) is his faith in vain? Let us think this over. Nowhere do Christ or the apostles imply that a knowledge of history would be needed to understand Scripture. To make F.P. valid, the Bible itself is not enough. We require-- a): extra-Biblical history, b): a correct train of logic and reasoning. But what the correct train of logic is, nobody seems to know. That is where the division among F.P. interpreters arises. All this is contary to real faith in CHRIST. It is His words we are to listen to, & not the fallible interpretations of men. It is His truths we are to believe, and not the updated & amended views of 'teachers' who have no Divine inspiration to prove them. If CHRIST's teachings are no longer current, then wherein do we exercise our faith? A Christian must have a reliable foundation on which to start building. The foundation is not A.D. 70, but the teachings of JESUS CHRIST. If the church doesn't have a current canon of SCripture, it has never really been a pillar and ground of the truth. And this is an absurdity that no reverent disciple will hold for a moment.
When all is said, I can't see that your 'non futurist' stance is tenable. Rejection of F.P. must perforce drive us back to futurism. Also, I don't necessarily agree with your critiques on what is called 'Idealism.' As I've seen it, Idealism repairs the damage that F.P. has done, by forcing the believer back into a 'directly applicable' view of New Testament theology. This is the best possible thing for our spiritual health, and it allows us to use the teachings of preterism in a right way, while preserving the authority of CHRIST Himself.

Peace and Health,

Brian Simmons

Kurt said...

Josh,
I thought Mt 18 is invoked for issues of sin? -- Is disagreement over theology a sin?"

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

You asked, "Is disagreement over theology a sin?". The answer is simply that heresy is always sin.

Kurt said...

Sorry, Josh. That's not what Matthew 18 says in my Bible. Can you explain how you come to your conclusion regarding Matthew 18 using yours?

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

If you want to get rhetorical, then fine. That's what all the cults do. Are you now saying then that heresy is not a sin? Should someone not be confronted for heresy? Let's get down to the point. Your real problem is that you don't like it that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ for 2,000 years has refused to recognize as Christians those who deny a physical, future resurrection of our bodies, since they will be like Christ's glorious Body. The Church for 2,000 years has refused to recognize as Christians those who deny a future, literal, physical return in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. You don't like the fact that your "new idea" has been rightly condemned by the faithful. And then you get all uptight when the Church does what the Lord has called her to do in shutting Her doors and refusing the keys to heretics. What arrogance! Heretics are some of the most arrogant people around. When the Church has been in unanimous agreement for 2,000 years on the issue of Christ's future coming and the physical resurrection of our bodies, and then the FPs come along and say "we know better", is it any wonder that you are laughed right out of the Church?

Kurt said...

Sorry, Josh. I didn't mean to upset you.

But, I try to follow the Bible, and it was you who said, "Had they stayed, they would have been confronted in the biblical way (Mt 18)." But, the "biblical way (Mt 18)" involves one person committing a sin against another person, not merely a disagreement on a theological issue.

If any of us Christians want to make a case that Preterism is wrong-thinking, fine. I don't have a problem with that, although that declaration has not yet been proven to my satisfaction.

But, Christians should have a problem saying that these people would have been confronted "in a biblical way" using Matthew 18. That's playing "fast and loose" with Scripture, showing a lack of proper exegesis.

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

I don't understand why you don't get what I said. I'll make it simpler for you in a syllogism:

MP: All sin needs to be confronted.
mP: Heresy is sin.
C: Heresy needs to be confronted.

Now, your dispute has to do with whether or not FP is heresy. My claim, and the claim of the historic Christian Church for the last 2,000 years, is that it is heresy. Since heresy is sin, then sin needs to be confronted in the Mt 18 biblical way, which is what a true church does.

What you call "merely a disagreement over a theological issue" the Christian Church calls "heresy" which is "sin."

I hope that clears it up for you.

Kurt said...

Josh,

I see several problems with your position, but we probably need to define terms first.

Could you provide definitions showing the difference between a "heresy" vs. a "non-heretical theological issue?" It might help you if you also explained the difference between something being "sin" and something being simply "wrong."

Thanks!

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

A heresy is a teaching which destroys the very essence of Christianity itself. It also means that someone who believes this heresy should not be considered a Christian.

For example, someone who denies the Trinity is a heretic because now he or she believes in a different god.

Other beliefs are in-house debates, say, like whether or not tongues and prophecy have ceased. This does not destroy the essence of the faith itself.

Kurt said...

"A heresy is a teaching which destroys the very essence of Christianity itself."

Josh,I kinda hoped that you would also define sin, and wrong, showing the life-and-death difference, but I'll take what I can get. :>)

So, "heresy is some teaching that destroys the very essence of Christianity."

Preterists believe in the 2nd coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgement, just like any Christian.

How does a simple disagreement on timing "destroy the very essence of Christianity?"

Josh Brisby said...

Kurt,

I'm glad you asked. :0)

If Christ has already come back, then the Law has passed away. Therefore, there is no more sin.

If Christ has already come back, then I am now glorified. Death is no longer considered an intruder.

If Christ has come back, then Satan is destroyed.

If the resurrection has already taken place, then this is the only body I can expect. Yet, Scripture tells us that our body will be like His glorious Body. This is why some full preterists even posit that Jesus did not rise bodily.

But if Christ didn't rise bodily, then neither will we.

This leaves no hope of future resurrection. But Paul tells us that is the lynchpin and hope of the Church.

This is why full preterism destroys the very essence of the faith. That is why the Church considers a physical future resurrection and physical future return of Christ to be essential--because it is part of the essence of the faith. We have seen above how denying it denies the essence of the faith. That is why the apostle calls Hymanaeus a heretic--not because of timing, but because of the essence of what the resurrection is.

Kurt said...

Preterists can respond and help me out here if I don't get this right, but I'll give it a shot.

If Christ has already come back, then the Law has passed away. Therefore, there is no more sin.

Josh, I take it you're referencing Matthew 5:18. We mustn't leave out the point Jesus was making, the context, which Matthew 5:17 helps with. Remember Jesus was talking to believers, not those who would be outside the gates, as in Rev 22:15, who are still sinning. Hasn't Jesus already fulfilled the Law for Christians, since sin no longer gives us the death penalty - the effect of sin? In other words, Christians are no longer under sin since Jesus fulfilled the Law for us - but not for unbelievers!

"If Christ has already come back, then I am now glorified. Death is no longer considered an intruder."

You're right - "death is no longer considered an intruder" for the Christian. As each of our physical tents are shed, we Christians will each have new spiritual, glorified bodies, never experiencing death by languishing in the ground until some future resurrection. Why the need? Christ already returned and completed the destruction of the Old Covenant under Judaism at A.D. 70, Rev 1:17 saying even "those that pierced him" at the crucifixion would experience his 2nd coming. Since that time, we have had a living, resurrected Christ who defeated Satan and death - for the elect - God's people.

"If Christ has come back, then Satan is destroyed."

Orthodox Christianity says that Satan will not be destroyed but remain alive forever in agony in Eternal Hell. Are you taking a "heretical" view on this? :>)

"If the resurrection has already taken place, then this is the only body I can expect."

The corporate resurrection took place in A.D. 70 for all saints of past centuries up until that time in the grave, and those alive at that time were transformed "in a twinkling of an eye." They could not come out of the graves nor the ones alive at time, until Christ returned to completely end the Old Covenant - which He did at Jerusalem, the temple sacrifices no longer to be made, after the Apostles had spread the Gospel, giving the Jews a chance to repent. Since that time, each Christian gets his glorified body - if he is in Christ, of course - at the demise of his physical one. Pretty straightforward.

"But if Christ didn't rise bodily, then neither will we."

I take it, when you say "bodily" you mean with flesh & bones. I have no problem believing that Jesus was physically resurrected. But somewhere along the way during the 40 days afterward, He received His spiritual, glorified body. However, the important understanding here is that the essence of who Jesus was - his person - did not remain "dead." He was very much alive - victorious over death. People get hung up on the nature of the event. We all know that God could raise people from the dead, back to physical life. He had already done it with Lazarus and many at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Again, the important thing to understand for our faith is that the sinless One, Jesus, was not left in the grave, but is alive, ruling over the Kingdom!

"We have seen above how denying it (the resurrection of the dead) denies the essence of the faith. That is why the apostle calls Hymanaeus a heretic--not because of timing, but because of the essence of what the resurrection is."

My Bible says:

1)Hymaneus was wrong about the timing, not the essence. Read 2Tim2:16-18

2)Paul called Hymaneus a blasphemer not a heretic. 1Tim1:20. There is a difference.

Brian Simmons said...

Roderick,

When you get a chance, read Larry Siegle's 'replies' to his recent article. This man's sophistries are amazing. So, we are really expected to believe that the Holy Spirit failed to guide the church into the truth until now?? Are we expected to believe that a system whose 'perception of timing' changes the fundamental truths of CHristianity must be allowed to override the consensus of 2,000 years of Spirit-anointed theologians?? I told him that historical consistency doesn't prove that our views are correct. It only proves that the church has maintained its presence as pillar and ground of the truth for 2,000 years! We have a right to expect such proof because Scripture teaches the continued presence of Christ's church "throughout all ages." Newfangled systems dissociate themselves from this idea. If the church's witness undergoes a fundamental tranformation, how are we expected to deal with it? Let us read 1 John 4: 6.
At any rate, just letting you know that you have my entire support against these strange 'workers of error.'

Peace and Health,

Brian

Dan Habermann said...

Brian,
Read your post and I do not know why you would select 1 John 4:6 as defense of "fundamental transformation".

"We [of God are]; the one knowing God, hears us; the one who is not of God, does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of the delusion."

Chapter four outlines how discern spirits. Verse 2 states that to know the spirit of God you must acknowledge that Christ came in flesh and is God. If you do not acknowledge this you do not have the spirit of God and are an antichrist. Verse 4 says that if you have the spirit of God you a sons and have overcome the others. The ones without God's spirit are of the world and the world likes to hear them.

These verses explicity apply to those who do not believe Christ was in the flesh coming from God. These verses could be applied to "fundamental transformations" within a Christian church of group resulting in a non-Christian beliefs. But there it must stop. FP (not hyper) does not deny the prior text so therefore could not be considered of the world.
By the way, 1 John is fairly preteristic in view. As a FP it is good to know that I do not have to worry about false prohets and people (antichrists) claiming that Christ is not God and that he was not on earth as a human. The timing seems to be off. I can see the efforts of the antichrists were dealing with a current issue, denying Christianity in its infancy.

Dan H

Roderick_E said...

Thanks Brian. I've read Larry's comments & as sincere as he may be, they merely rehash what has already been addressed. The Restoration Movement & the Reformation were NOT akin -- The Restoration Movement advocated the Church & Gospel had been lost (so much for God's sovereignty) whereas the Reformation merely wanted to remove the Papal "bushel" that was hiding the light that cannot be ultimately doused.

The presure is on & the irony is that for the FP movement to survive & not fracture into a million sects (as it presently is doing) it will have to do the very thing it loaths -- declare their shared "belief/creed". Once they do this they will become something to respond to & interact with, to agree with or refute.

Maybe we'll be able to really interact with them in 10 years or so once they have a coherent creed instead of the babblings of a few vocal & arrogant people who are "leading thousands" -- just as the Mormons & JWs...or maybe (as a group) they will simply fade away as so many other novelties.

NewCreation said...

Rod, "The pressure is on & the irony is that for the FP movement to survive & not fracture into a million sects (as it presently is doing) it will have to do the very thing it loaths -- declare their shared "belief/creed"."

This is a excellent point that can not be ignored. Either they was stand behind the things the hold to (which is extreme hyper-preterism, leading to Universalism), invent another set of doctrines that are not so extreme, but still wrong, or they will fade away. Your observations are on target.


http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/

Dan Habermann said...

Roderick,
I have been studying your "unpreterization" process and have come to some conlcusions. The problem with FP in the present church age is that FP and Arminianism do not mix. When mixed it leads straight to Universalism if all aspects of the doctrine are taken to their endpoints. When I was at the 1st Carlsbad conference, Todd Dennis was supposed to speak about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Instead he unveiled the PretIdeal concept. This coincided with John Noe's Christ many comings theory. The moderator Kurt Simmons should have stopped them from speaking about this. No one did. It would be awesome to imagine FP had a non-fractured leadership and a common creed disallowing these non-Christian ideas to propagate. I have also found that most of these people who are attacking FP are doing so from emotional response to their own problems. One example, who I hope you will not associate with, is Scott Thompson's blog site preteristheresy.blogspot.com. He is also known as New Creation. He certainly is not a voice for Christianity. If you look at his site you would want to change religions. Again, like Todd Dennis, he has personal issues that have caused an emotional theology. FP does not say that the law was abolished, it was fulfilled. Do you see the point? If you were an Arminian of better yet a Dispy, you could never understand this. The problem in America is the loss of reformed theology. Most reformed church members have no understanding of what Luther accomplished besides the abolition of the Pope and Indulgences. This weak theology then renders most reformed church members Universalists. They do not understand Limited Atonement, etc. To promote FP to anyone except those who have fully embraced Reformed theology will lead them to a destructive state. It is too bad that people like Don Preston will not say that Annihilationism is false. If you are a true Calvinist and abide by the doctrine you a safe from Universalism after becoming a FP. I challenge anyone to show how this could happen and how it could diminish their faith. Scott Thompson repeatedly states that FP are heretics. He is partially right. There a true heretics in any group. Where in your Calvinism have you gone astray to say that FP leads to Universalism?

Dan

Roderick_E said...

Hi there Dan..you said "To promote FP to anyone except those who have fully embraced Reformed theology will lead them to a destructive state." & "The problem with FP in the present church age is that FP and Arminianism do not mix." If this is so AND we know that a goodly amount of Christians are currently Arminianistic in theology, then perhaps our focus should first be on advocating solid biblical Reformed theology before we introduce ANY kind of preteristic concepts to them (even partial-preterism).

By your own observations, the introduction of FP to the current state of Christians, "will lead them to destruction" & it certainly is.

To top this off, there are very few really "Reformed" people within FP -- there are guys calling themselves "Sov Grace" -- but these guys AREN'T Reformed & thus they are no more inoculated against the errors than the Arminians. The "virus" spreads among the "dark seekers".

But I really appreciate your observations Dan. They are very keen. Arminianism & FP are a very, very, very deadly mixture.

Bob said...

Hi Roderick,

This question has nothing to do with preterism, but after reading your comments and Dan's, I was wondering what is the difference between Calvinism and Sovereign Grace.

In the Lord,

Bob

rcc_1823@yahoo.com

If this is not the place to post this then I accept my apology

Roderick_E said...

Bob... Is it ok if I answer your question via email since this blog is specifically about FP? But a simple answer is that Sov Grace can mean anything the advocate defines but Calvinism has a specific historical heritage.

Coeccius2Grotius said...

Dan, I wonder if you truly were at Carlsbad. I did indeed present the Dead Sea Scrolls material as scheduled, and I didn't present any pret-idealist material. None!

No matter, just thought it was *highly* ironic.

It makes me wonder, "Dan Haberman" (on since um, last week), if you are who you claim to be.. but again, no matter.

Sincere thanks for the blog, rod. I've been in contact with MANY who are being impacted.. including numerous full prets who are right on the brink of bowing out of that game.

Coeccius2Grotius said...

Dan, I wonder if you truly were at Carlsbad. I did indeed present the Dead Sea Scrolls material as scheduled ; in fact, I didn't present any pret-idealist material. None!

No matter, just thought it was *highly* ironic.

It makes me wonder, "Dan Haberman" (on since um, last week), if you are who you claim to be.. but again, no matter.

Sincere thanks for the blog, rod. I've been in contact with MANY who are being impacted.. including numerous full prets who are right on the brink of bowing out of that game.

TD

Roderick_E said...

I am glad they are being impacted Todd -- There are 2 more aspects a person within FP should consider.

1) The Flaw of the Max/Tim King "covenantal-change" teaching
2) That Christ was "coming" INTO His kingdom.

The first consideration is very important. Many FP using the Max/Tim King "covenantal-change" model have "man made new because the (covenantal)world was made new". Or as directly quoted from Tim King: "“In Adam, humanity was alienated from God and there was no victory for either. What was needed was a new world that would bring forth a new man through a new relationship of life and righteousness.” (source: http://www.presence.tv/cms/compgrace.shtml)


This is biblically backwards. The "world" only becomes new when man is made new. Look, even the Flood account reveals this. What happened right after God wiped out the former world? Sin still existed; from Noah,s drunkeness, to Ham's betrayal, to Nimrod & company's arrogance. It would appear God failed EXCEPT that we see it was an object lesson pointing to the fact that the new "destruction" & remaking of the "world" would be one where the old man is destroyed & made new IN CHRIST.

The "covenantal-change" scheme either leads to univeralism or God having "saved" only His "covenantal" people out of the tribulation & now He is done.

On the second point, I think FP (as I did when I was a FP) misunderstand what COMING means in the Bible. For example, Jesus was COMING INTO HIS KINGDOM. This is best expressed in Lk 23:42-43 where we see the criminal on the Cross saying to Jesus:

“Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.”

We see this again in one of the FP favorite verses (Mt 26:64):

"Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The FP DO HAVE SOMETHING RIGHT...Jesus WAS ABOUT TO COME....but it was a coming into His kingdom, into His power & reign.

Roderick_E said...

To All Respondents" I will not be publishing anymore comments in the stream of: "you can't judge all of preterism by a few bad apples".

First off, it ISN'T just a few bad apples. The core & driving forces behind what FP is today is corrupt. From Max King & his "covenantal-change" concept wherein he has man becoming new because the "world" became new, to the arrogance of his heir apparent, to the men & women who blindly go along with all of this - FP is corrupt not in the minority, but in the majority. Therefore any comparisons between the "fringe" elements that always exist, such as the Judaizers in the early church, or the Anabapatists in the Reformation are not accurate. FP in the main is corrupt. I have admitted there are "fringe" elements that AREN'T corrupt -- but these do not represent FP in the main.

Lastly, I have given waaaay more reasons why FP must be rejected than just the corrupt fruits of it, thus I can only conclude that when people send me comments in the stream of "you can't judge all of preterism by a few bad apples" that they haven't really read what I have written about this subject.

Thank you,
Roderick Edwards