What Prevents A Preterist From Becoming Hyper? - Page 2

Daniel Ritchie · #41 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

Another: When is Gentry's Revelation commentary due?

About year 28 into the golden age millennium. I wouldn't hold your breath.

I will have to make do with David Chilton in the meantime then.

ChristianTrader · #42 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

Another: When is Gentry's Revelation commentary due?

About year 28 into the golden age millennium. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Gentry was on Gary Demar's show a few months ago. He said that he worked so hard on the later chapters where he had done little work on previously and then looked back at the earlier ones (where he assumed that little work would be necessary) and saw that it did not stand up to the quality of the later chapters. So he then had to go work more on the earlier ones. He did seem hopeful that it would be done soon.

CT

Daniel Ritchie · #43 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

Another: When is Gentry's Revelation commentary due?

About year 28 into the golden age millennium. I wouldn't hold your breath.

Gentry was on Gary Demar's show a few months ago. He said that he worked so hard on the later chapters where he had done little work on previously and then looked back at the earlier ones (where he assumed that little work would be necessary) and saw that it did not stand up to the quality of the later chapters. So he then had to go work more on the earlier ones. He did seem hopeful that it would be done soon.

CT

It sounds like it will be worth waiting for.

KMK · #44 (**permalink**) 04-13-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

The defense of orthodoxy is not predicated on a single text (1 Co. 15), but the story line, including the resurrection of the body.

I really like this statement! Good to hear from you again unlearnedlearner!

Gage Browning · #45 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 12:39 AM

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

This is the passage that sticks in my mind that goes against "full preterism". It seems to me that Acts 1 says that Jesus is at least coming back "visibly"...the same way he went up, he's coming back etc.

So if he did come back "visibly" where is the testimony?

On another note- aren't all of us somewhat "partial preterists"? At least most of us see many prophecies being fulfilled...maybe just not the bodily return. Right?

BlackCalvinist · #46 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 01:07 AM

Even dispensationalists are partial preterists on Matthew 24 regarding the temple and 70 AD.....(stopping between verses 3 and/or 8, depending on who you talk to....)

tcalbrecht · #47 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

Even dispensationalists are partial preterists on Matthew 24 regarding the temple and 70 AD.....(stopping between verses 3 and/or 8, depending on who you talk to....)

Not entirely true. Many dispensationalists assert that Matthew 24 is entirely future. Luke 21, on the other hand, they view as referring to AD70.

puritan lad · #48 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

According to Gentry, Chilton never became a hyperpreterist. He says the hyperpreterists made the whole thing up.

There is probably some truth to that.

I understand that his last book "What Happened in 70 AD?", is hyper, but have never read it.

Gary North seems to agree, from Gary North vs. David Chilton

Quote:

As the publisher of Days of Vengeance and Paradise Restored, let me say, without hesitation, that the post-1994 David Chilton is indeed a heretic who has denied the Church's historic creeds and confessions on the question of the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment.

It is always sad when a defender of the faith abandons orthodoxy on any point. When he abandons it on the very point on which he had made his intellectual reputation, it is double sad. In Chilton's case, it is pathetic, for no matter what he writes on this topic from now on, his critics will be able to say, justifiably: "His heart attack disrupted his ability to think clearly. It distorted his judgment."

KMK · #49 (**permalink**) 04-14-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

According to Gentry, Chilton never became a hyperpreterist. He says the hyperpreterists made the whole thing up.

There is probably some truth to that.

I understand that his last book "What Happened in 70 AD?", is hyper, but have never read it.

Gary North seems to agree, from Gary North vs. David Chilton

Quote:

As the publisher of Days of Vengeance and Paradise Restored, let me say, without hesitation, that the post-1994 David Chilton is indeed a heretic who has denied the Church's historic creeds and confessions on the question of the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment.

It is always sad when a defender of the faith abandons orthodoxy on any point. When he abandons it on the very point on which he had made his intellectual reputation, it is double sad. In Chilton's case, it is pathetic, for no matter what he writes on this topic from now on, his critics will be able to say, justifiably: "His heart attack disrupted his ability to think clearly. It distorted his judgment."

Isn't this quote from a hyperpreterist website? Can anyone coroborate this quote from a different source?

MOSES · #50 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civbert

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Max King (former Church of Christ minister), John Noe, Ed Stevens, David Chilton, and Sam Frost are noted hyperpreterists.

Thanks.

Except for King, are these mostly Presbies of some form? I've heard of David Chilton - he's a big-time Theomonist, no?

And Gary DeMar is a partial-preterist? Who else?

I am not sure if these men are all Presbyterians or not. David Chilton was a theonomist until his death, I just hope he was converted to Christ. Daniel Ritchie may know more about Chilton, than me. Yes, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry, R.C. Sproul, Jr. would be partial preterists. I subscribe to the partial preterist position, which would be within the pale of orthodoxy.

Were not Gary DeMar and David Chilton in seminary together with Bahnsen (who was teaching at the time)...I believe it was RTS...?
note: from what I know Chilton was reformed.

MOSES · #51 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

You say you "take the position that there is a break in the action at Matt 24 from v 34 to 36." Are there differences of opinion among preterists?

Do preterists make a break at 34 because of exegetical reasons or because they understand the implications of not making such a break?

KMK

What do you think the implications of NOT taking such a break in the text are?
What are those implications in your opinion?

I personally don't take a break from Matt. 23-25...
You must think that there are some "implications" on my part in doing this, right?
OK...in my exegesis of being consistent through the text..I have some "implications" to deal with in doing so...What do you think they are?

KMK
Yea I know, I keep bugging you....But you are the one that brought up these questions..so I'm picking on the questioner...

I also know I basically repeated my same question several times.

Beth Ellen Nagle · #52 (**permalink**) 05-15-2008, 09:09 PM

What Prevents A Preterist From Becoming Hyper?

A good spanking.

KMK · #53 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

You say you "take the position that there is a break in the action at Matt 24 from v 34 to 36." Are there differences of opinion among preterists?

Do preterists make a break at 34 because of exegetical reasons or because they understand the implications of not making such a break?

KMK

What do you think the implications of NOT taking such a break in the text are?
What are those implications in your opinion?

I personally don't take a break from Matt. 23-25...
You must think that there are some "implications" on my part in doing this, right?

I don't know what 'implications' you are talking about. I am trying to nail down what exactly makes hp 'hyper'. From the responses it seems to be the denial of a future bodily resurrection. (Which you believe)

AV1611 · #54 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

from what I know Chilton was reformed.

Have you read Greg Bahnsen's “Another Look at Chilton’s Days of Vengeance"?

Quote:

I cannot recommend my friend David’s commentary on Revelation. (1) It embodies an unsound, imaginative hermeneutic. (2) It is confused about the book’s structure and meaning. (3) It is guilty of considerable errors in history and interpretation.

AV1611 · #55 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

Even dispensationalists are partial preterists on Matthew 24 regarding the temple and 70 AD.....(stopping between verses 3 and/or 8, depending on who you talk to....)

Not the ones I know, and I was in the Plymouth Brethren for 18 months

MOSES · #56 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

from what I know Chilton was reformed.

Have you read Greg Bahnsen's “Another Look at Chilton’s Days of Vengeance"?

Quote:

I cannot recommend my friend David’s commentary on Revelation. (1) It embodies an unsound, imaginative hermeneutic. (2) It is confused about the book’s structure and meaning. (3) It is guilty of considerable errors in history and interpretation.

Yes I've read it before.
Bahnsen said:

Quote:

Because the author [Chilton] and I are friends, because we share a common eschatological perspective. . .

Personally I'm not quite sure that they did share a common eschatological perspective...unless he narrowly just means an eschatology of hope, i.e., Post-mill

MOSES · #57 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

I don't know what 'implications' you are talking about...[moses]

KMK
You stated (inferred) that there are "implications" of not making a break in the interpretation of Matthew 24-25 at verse 34 of chapt. 24.

You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Do preterists make a break at 34 because of exegetical reasons or because they understand the IMPLICATIONS of not making such a break?

I'm trying to find out from you what you think these "implications" would be.
Your the one who implied (and said) that there are implications in not taking a break in timing in matt. 24-25
In order for you to of said what you said above, you would of had some presuppositions as to what those implications are..

I'm just asking you to tell me what (in your mind when you said this) those implications are.

Thanks

KMK · #58 (**permalink**) 05-17-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOSES

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

I don't know what 'implications' you are talking about...[moses]

KMK
You stated (inferred) that there are "implications" of not making a break in the interpretation of Matthew 24-25 at verse 34 of chapt. 24.

You said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Do preterists make a break at 34 because of exegetical reasons or because they understand the IMPLICATIONS of not making such a break?

I'm trying to find out from you what you think these "implications" would be.
Your the one who implied (and said) that there are implications in not taking a break in timing in matt. 24-25
In order for you to of said what you said above, you would of had some presuppositions as to what those implications are..

I'm just asking you to tell me what (in your mind when you said this) those implications are.

Thanks

Sorry, this thread is rather old and I had forgotten how it started. The implication I was referring to is this: If you don't make a break at 32, then what follows must belong to a first century fulfilment. That can be problematic as the majority of church history teaches that Matt 25 concerns the second coming (which is future).

At the time I asked the question I was of the understanding that only hyper-preterists argue for a 1st century fulfillment of Matt 25. I now stand corrected.