Saturday, January 24, 2015

Unpret Podcast #1 Preterism Today - The Israel Only Doctrine

Since Preterism's rise in the 1990s it has been ever advancing its key premise that "all is fulfilled". With this premise comes the logical implications of what "ALL" includes.

While the early proponents of Full Preterism would often talk about how it is a "radical paradigm shift", they now often downplay that notion; since it leads the adherent to further question what else in their understanding is affected. This leads to the inevitable "what now" questions.

In this pilot podcast on Unpret, we interview two Full Preterists that have taken the premise to its logical conclusions; no more heaven for anyone today.

direct link:


Eric H said...

Great interview. I think there are two points to keep in mind:

1. The "Israel-Only" doctrine is not limited to full preterism. There are also futurists who believe the only persons that are saved are the biological Israelites and they are still waiting for the second coming. This is not part of the logical conclusion of full preterism.

2. I believe the death in Genesis 2-3 was clearly not referring to physical death using exegesis. God said in the "day" that they eat of the fruit, they will surely die. They did not biologically die that day, therefore, they spiritually, or covenantally, died. They were kicked out of the garden signified by separation from God. That is the death that is talked about in Genesis and that is the death that is fixed at the end. God gives a time statement of when the death would happen and that's how we know it's not about physical death.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eric,

One thing that we did not cover on the podcast is that Full Preterists who understand that only the Israelites according to the flesh were God's covenant people (Romans 9:3-5) would also argue that that are no more Isarelites after the Parousia (c. AD70).

Thus, it is much different than what some Futurists believe about certain people who are the "true Israel" today.

Thank you for listening to the podcast.

Rivers :)

Anonymous said...


Your "exegesis" in Genesis 2-3 doesn't work for the following reasons.

First, there is nothing mentioned about a spiritual or covenantal death anywhere in the Bible. Thus, there is no exegetical reason to insert it in Genesis 2:17.

Second, the Hebrew in Genesis 2:17 can be understood to infer that "the day" signified only when the process of "surely dying" would begin to occur. This is confirmed in God's own explanation of Adam's punishment in Genesis 3:19. It is also plainly stated later in the story that Adam did not "die" until 930 years.

Third, Adam and Ever were still in "the presence of God" after they were expelled from the garden (Genesis 4:16-17).

Fourth, the words "surely die" are used many other times in biblical Hebrew and always refer to biological death. Thus, there is no reason to make an exception in Genesis 2-3 when we know that Adam also died bioligically (Genesis 3:19; Genesis 5:5).

Rivers :)

Brian Simmons said...

Hi Roderick,

I'm glad to see you still swinging the battle axe against heresy and heretics. Although I've been off the radar for a few years, I still occasionally (about once a year now) check in and see how the HP scene is faring. I haven't seen that it's changed much, but it does appear that several formerly active persons have gone AWOL and whole sites have been dismantled. I suppose this is a blessing.. of sorts!

Regardless what any man says, I think at the end of the day the fruits are going to speak for themselves. Jesus Christ and His doctrine still transform lives, His sheep still hear His voice (John 10: 3-5) and they who love Him still keep His commandments (John 14: 21). Heretics still foment division, and give rise to bitter envy, railing, perverse disputings, swellings, tumults, and more. Every tree is known by its fruit.

Of course, were 2,000 years of Christianity wrong, it wouldn't be needful to "believe" anything. And that's where the heretics systems require too much "faith." What moral obligation is there to listen to someone who proceeds from such a premise? If all were wrong save aforesaid heretic, then let the heretic be mistaken as well. That is one of the reasons I still decline to read any heretical materials. Haven't done so since 2010.

Hope all is going well with yourself. I'm no longer on Facebook or any social media. I plan to get back into blogging soon, but it wont be about prophecy or eschatology centered. I am still Historic Pre-Mil in my views and follow closely the teachings of the early church with few exceptions. As a fellow advocate of the historicity argument, I would say that 2,000 years of true doctrine has done me nothing but good. To Him be the glory!

Brian Simmons