Full-Preterism/Hyper-Preterism: A Damnable Heresy

Don't the JW's teach that Jesus has already returned to earth?

I don't understand preterism at all.. it makes little sense. It sounds like the heresy that Paul was addressing in Thessalonica to me.

 

Yes, it does.

 

Since resurrection of the dead is the most difficult hurdle to accepting the full-preterist view it requires much study. I'm not qualified since I;m still fighting my way through this topic. I'll point you to those who I find most helpful.

http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=61

If you like listening to sermons this man is most helpful. I found he is on a similar journey as me. Sermons from his "Last Days Series #13-14. I would recommend, when time allows, to start with #1 and listen to the entire series for a systematic journey to the FP view:

http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

For the most schollarly writings this is the best:

http://www.thereignofchrist.com/ind...ction-of-the-dead&catid=38:articles&Itemid=48

http://www.thereignofchrist.com/ind...&id=67:i-corinthians&Itemid=87&layout=default

 

Sure, if you then are willing to defend them and answer questions after I read your links.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Why is everything so funny???

 

ReformedBaptist I notice you quote Manton and Spurgeon in your signature. Perhaps you should read their eschatological views and not just their soteriology. Perhpas they are heretics as well:

Manton:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/m/manton-thomas.html

(OnJames 5:8)
"Either, first, to them by a particular judgment; for there were but a few years, and then all was lost; and probably that may be it which the apostles mean when they speak so often of the nearness of Christ's coming. But you will say, How could this be propounded as an argument of patience to the godly Hebrews that Christ would come and destroy the temple and city? I answer, (1) The time of Christ's solemn judiciary process against the Jews was the time when He did acquit Himself with honour upon His adversaries, and the scandal and reproach of His death rolled away. (2) The approach of His general judgment ended the persecution; and when the godly were provided for at Pella, the unbelievers perished by the Roman sword."
(On James 5:9)
"He had said before, 'The coming of the Lord draweth nigh;' now he addeth that 'he is at the door,' a phrase that doth not only imply the sureness, but the suddenness, of judgment. See Matthew 24:33: 'Know that it is near, even at the door;' so that this phrase intendeth also the speediness of the Jewish ruin."
(On Creedolatry)
"The Scripture is a sufficient rule of Christian Faith, or a record of all necessary Christian doctrines, without any supplement of unwritten traditions, as containing any necessary matter of faith, and is thus far sufficient for the decision of all controversies." ("The Scripture Sufficient Without Unwritten Traditions")

Spurgeon


http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/s/spurgeon_c-h.html
(On the book, The Parousia)
"The second coming of Christ according to this volume had its fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the gospel dispensation... Amidst the many comings of Christ spoken of in the New Testament that which is spoken of as a second, must, we think, be personal, and thus similar to the first; and such too must be the meaning of 'his appearing.' Though the author's theory is carried too far, it has so much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious to none and may be profitable to all." [Reprinted from the October 1878 issue of The Sword and the Trowel Magazine]

 

Well it is quite obvious you cannot deal with these issues from scripture so I will leave you to your creeds to study. But remember the words of Manton:

"The Scripture is a sufficient rule of Christian Faith, or a record of all necessary Christian doctrines, without any supplement of unwritten traditions, as containing any necessary matter of faith, and is thus far sufficient for the decision of all controversies." ("The Scripture Sufficient Without Unwritten Traditions")

 

Grasshopper, I would really like to understand the preterist view better. How can the judgment have already happened when there are so many who have not been judged yet?

And what happens next? The new heaven and earth? I find this very confusing.

Maybe you could list the events for me?

 

According to information that I could find, the apostle John died in approximately 100 AD. If the rapture took place in 70 AD, why did John get left behind?

 

Preterists make up two groups, partial and full. PP's would say most if not all of Matthew 24 was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and that much of Revelation spaeks also of that event. But they do believe in a future Coming of Christ, bodily resurrection and Judgment. This view was a very easy one to come to once I was exposed to it and began studying.

FP believe pretty much all those events were fulfilled in AD70. Although each individual's judgmet occurs upon death and resurrection is not physical in nature (This is the sole reason RC Sproul rejects FP).

Here are some short essays that I hope will give you an introduction to the full preterist view:


http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/An%20Introduction%20to%20Preterism.htm


http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/What%20Is%20The%20Preterist%20View.htm

http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/An%20Introduction%20To%20The%20Preterist%20View%20Of%20Eschatology.htm

If the FP view is too much then I would recommend reading Gary DeMar's book "Last Days Madness"

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Days-Madness-Obsession-Modern/dp/0915815354

Here are a couple of chapters you can read on-line:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarpassing.html

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demarantichrist.html


Or RC Sproul's book the "The Last Days According to Jesus" is another excellent book.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/080106340X/?tag=baptis04-20

If you don't have e-sword: http://www.e-sword.net/
get it. Download all the commentaries and read what they believed concerning many of these issues. It is amazing how far the modern church as veered off the eschatological path in the last 200 years.

Hope this helps and approach it all with an open mind and an open Bible.

PS, concerning your last post, there are some who believe a rapture occured in AD70 but that is a minority view. Most FP do not believe that.

 

Thanks Grasshopper. I think it's important to look at all views. I think the OP may be a little over the top. So far I haven't seen anything "damnable" about preterism. Looking at all the different views on eschatology, how can I know who has the right view? It is certainly not clear cut.
But I will say this. After reading Matthew 24 for the billion'th time ( :laugh: ), it seems to me that Jesus is speaking of more than one event. Certainly the fall of Jerusalem is one them, but He is obviously also speaking of later end time events that have not taken place. The disciples asked Him 3 questions.
1) When will the temple be destroyed?
2) What will be the sign of His coming?
3) What will be the sign of the end of the age?

So, I think in this chapter Jesus is answering all 3 questions, which involve different events at different times.

In my opinion (so far) :laugh:

Edit: Also, I think we can lay to rest the rapture occurring in 70 AD. That cannot be correct. John was still here for many years after that.

 

What are you some kind of Troll? Is this all you care about? Two threads on prophecy and all you care concerned with is the source for a quote?

Here are my questions you have been unable to answer, answer these then I will answer yours, until then back under the bridge you go:

But you failed to mention if you agree with their views on the Olivet Discourse which was the purpose of the post.

What do you find Here that is profane, vain babblings and taught by an unstable and untaught man:
http://www.sovereigngracebible.org/

Did Gill and Barnes and Clarke err in their interpretation of Matt. 24? If so how?

What error? Gill says the events of AD70 were a "coming of the son of man" was he right? You never answered the question.

Owen says 2 Peter speaks of the end of the Mosaic economy not the end of the world. Do you agree?

Spurgeon says the Tribulation was in the events of AD70, do you agree?

Dispies say all those events occur at the time of Christ's return. Do you agree?

Know of anyone's whose faith has been destroyed?

Was Gill wrong in placing a "coming of the son of man" in the events of AD70?

Why start a thread like this if you are then unwilling to engage in it?

 

I agree about John.

This might help on the Olivet Discourse:

http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html

He is a partial-pret and very anti-FP.

Good luck.

 

Oh good grief, RB. This is debate. Stick around. We might all learn something.