Preterist heretical?

IMHO Preterist teachings are not heretical
nor an apostacy. Of course, i have no proof text
for this "IMHO".

 

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.

 

'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?'

 

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.

 

As a pre-mil pre-trib believer, do you not see any potential danger in the preterist doctrine?

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

The destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by Rome is included in the Olivet Discourse. I thought such an inderstanding was obvious.

 

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.

 

Spurgeon was historic premill. Why do you keep repeating your nonsense about Spurgeon?

 

Because he wasn't pre-trib. Read!

 

What? That doesn't make sense. Premillers all can see how hilarious and utterly pathetic preterists are.

 

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.

 

"Pathetic" does not prove "heretical".