Preterist heretical?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Dec 12, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had a retired pastor talk to me today about going to Colorado to correct a false and evil doctrine that has started called Preterism.

    Obviously, I understand what Preterism is, that is not the issue, but the issue is, should this be considered as a false and evil doctrine or since it is not related to salvation, and to interpretation of the Revelation, then is it right to go around to churches to correct this

    He actually used the word "heresy" in relation to the doctrine.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO Preterist teachings are not heretical
    nor an apostacy. Of course, i have no proof text
    for this "IMHO".
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    My thoughts exactly. I heard tonight some Baptist Churchs (not SBC) have actually stated that belief in Pre-trib is an essential part of salvation. That sounds like someone who has failed to read through the New Testament. Especially, the gospels and Romans.
     
  4. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    At times, certain leaders use strong words such as heresy to add weight to their pleas so that more people will come aboard their bandwagon. in my opinion this can be a little bit manipulative at times.
     
  5. Link

    Link
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Heresy' comes from a Greek word that means division. Some early heresies called division in the body.

    About Preterists, some full Preterists-- extreme Preterists I call them-- deny that there will be a resurrection of the dead. They use their code-word method of interpretation to interpret away a literal resurrection of the dead at the end of the age from the Bible. This flies in the face of Paul's sermons in Acts and I Corinthians 15. Of course, not all Preterists believe this.

    Paul delivered two men over to Satan that they should learn not to blaspheme. These men were teaching that the resurrection had already occurred, and their teaching had shipwrecked the faith of many. According to I Corinthians 15, the resurrection is a pivotal doctrine of the Christian faith. Faith in the resurrection is a key element in overcoming sin. We need to have faith in the resurrection of Christ. Paul seemed to see that denying the resurrection in general denied the resurrection of Christ. Christ is, after all, the firstfruits of the resurrection. Maybe this is why the two men were seen as shipwrecking the faith of some by teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. Their teaching also involved some kind of blasphemy. Maybe paul considered their teaching the resurrection had already occured a form of blasphemy or maybe something else they taught was blasphemy.

    Delivering someone over to Satan is also seen in I Corinthians 5 where the church is told to disfellowship the unrepentant incestuous fornicator over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Maybe Paul saw teaching that the resurrection has already occurred before it happens as a teaching worth excommunicating someone over. Wouldn't that be considered a 'heresy?'
     
  6. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This may be exactly what he is talking about. Because he did say they believed that ALL predictions have already occurred.

    This leads me to believe that the speaker was talking about EXTREME preterism; including the ressurection. THIS I can certainly agree and understand.

    Thank you for the enlightenment.
     
  7. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most preterists on this site, that I have read so far, are partial.

    We, no, I originally wrote a premil pretrib clause into our church doctrinal statement. Took it back out. Did not want that to be a test of faith and fellowship.

    Premil, pretrib is our position and no one in our church may teach contrary to that, but it is not a test of faith or fellowship.
     
  8. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    As a pre-mil pre-trib believer, do you not see any potential danger in the preterist doctrine?
     
  9. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no danger in preterist theology like there is no danger is bozo the clown is the real antichrist theology.

    Preterism is for those who have neither the skills or understanding of Scripture. It is for the lazy, incompetent, ignorant, etc. It is sort of like a 'union' for bad theologians.
     
  10. APuritanMindset

    APuritanMindset
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard R.C. Sproul was a Preterist. Are you saying he's a bad theologian?

    I ask that to say this, most people in our churches believe pre-trib pre-mil because it is what is promoted in Left Behind and in the majority of end times writings out there. I think this shows laziness, incompetence, ignorance, etc. on the part of our church members. Instead of reading for themselves, they assume Tim LaHaye wouldn't lie to them.

    While I don't agree with Preterism personally, it is not a matter of ignorance that people believe something like it. Since it's the minority position and not the one promoted most of the time, it takes more work to find information on it. That's not ignorance.

    ...sorry...needed to rant I guess... [​IMG]
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    APuritanMindset, I have to agree with you. I had to ask Ed to give me scriptures to prove pre-trib, pre-mil. I had problems actually seeing it until the scriptures were spread out.

    I believe Hank Hannigraph (The Bible answerman) is Preterist. Or at least partially. He is definitely not an ignorant person, but this does not make any human right on every single subject.
     
  12. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's define preterism here guys!

    I'd agree that full preterism is pretty "out there". That type of eschatology is really NO ESCHATOLOGY!

    Now partial preterism on the other hand is not ridiculous. To see Jesus' Olivet discourse as referring to the fall of the Temple makes good sense, arguably better scriptural sense than seeing it as referring to the eschaton. How could Jesus have been referring to the end of the world if he told the disciples that "this generation" would not pass away?

    Now the Apocalypse is a different story. A pre 70 date for Revelation is unlikely and a preterist vision here just doesn't fit.
     
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Rome is included in the Olivet Discourse. I thought such an inderstanding was obvious. [​IMG]
     
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    So much for discussion and debate. Spurgeon, Gill, Owen, and all the great past theologians would not be permitted to teach in your church. Unbelievable. I bet your seminary you attended had the same rules, correct? Nothing but robots.
     
  15. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Spurgeon was historic premill. Why do you keep repeating your nonsense about Spurgeon?
     
  16. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Because he wasn't pre-trib. Read!
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? That doesn't make sense. Premillers all can see how hilarious and utterly pathetic preterists are.
     
  18. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Yes, that is why you run and hide when questions are asked of you. Perhaps you should go back to the thread Ed started in the non-Baptist section and answer my question regarding the Olivet Discourse. Or perhaps the question of the New heavens and Earth of Is 65 and 66 being the same or different than the one of Revelation. You ran from that one as well.

    However there is nothing funnier than pre-mill Jack Van Impe.
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Pathetic" does not prove "heretical".
     
  20. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I would classify Sproul as a "Partial Preterist". I'm trying to find ANY full preterist.

    If there are, they must "allegorize" almost ALL prophecy. And that is not good hermeneutic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...