Full Preterists

[Jim Johnston]

Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?

Most say our body just disintergrates, our soul goes on living forever with God. However, when pressed to provide exegetical warrant for this, they don't have much by way of response.

Since Jesus still has a body (allegedly), and Enoch was taken up bodily, and so was Elijah, I guess those three just kick it together forever while we all float around them as disembodied souls.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Could someone please state in one sentence what full preterists believe happens to us when we die? Body and soul?

Your physical body rots in the earth never to rise and you recieve a spirtual body for heaven which is the eternal state.

At least they are being consistent. Is there such a thing as the new heavens and new earth? Do we reign on earth as well as heaven?

We are in the New Heavens and New Earth right now (NH & NE). For the hyper-preterist the NH & NE is just the "New Covenant."

The gates are open allowing people to enter into it (i.e., convert), and those outside the gates are the unregenerate and reprobate.

 

[Jim Johnston]

This world, along with sin, death and rebellion against God continues for eternity.

Well that is what I thought... very strange.

Thanks for the summary. I guess I will have to study this issue a little more but I have to say that I have never encountered it in my ministry either directly or indirectly.

I marshal 25 "arguments" against them here

Triablogue: Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism

If that helps your studies.

 

[Jim Johnston]

(BTW, hyper-preterists would say that Hymenaeus was in error because at that time the resurrection was still future but they are not because the resurrection was past.)

Yes, they would say that. But if we are correct, then they are guilty of the Hymenaeun heresy.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Thanks! I had an encounter with a full preterist and was chewed out for being "mean" to the poor preterist by some other folks on the email list. A friend described hyper preterists as being too close to damnable heresy.

As him/her if she thinks Paul was "mean" to Hymenaeus.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Anyone familiar with Mike Krall? He has some good links on his page, but is he hyper preterist? Very solid on soteriology...

I am. Last I knew he was a hard core hyper-preterist.

I interacted with him in "Z" on this list of arguments of mine:

Triablogue: Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism

Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Your physical body rots in the earth never to rise and you recieve a spirtual body for heaven which is the eternal state.

At least they are being consistent. Is there such a thing as the new heavens and new earth? Do we reign on earth as well as heaven?

We are in the New Heavens and New Earth right now (NH & NE). For the hyper-preterist the NH & NE is just the "New Covenant."

The gates are open allowing people to enter into it (i.e., convert), and those outside the gates are the unregenerate and reprobate.

Thanks for your posts in this thread brother!!!

 

[KMK]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This is one of my favorite passages.

(Job 19:25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

(Job 19:26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

(Job 19:27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

I have heard of this heresy for years. It seems that this nonsense would just go away, but it rears its head ever so once in a while to my amazement.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.

Every Hyper-preterist I've ever met has been a Calvinist.

Almost every heretic was "no slouch" when it came to reading and understanding (depending on how you're using 'understanding').

 

[wsw201]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

Not sure what they believed but even if they did that would not make it okay. These men were right about a number of things but not everything. The idea of a "spiritual resurrection and afterlife" goes against Paul's arguments in 1 Cor 15. Our bodies may not be the same when Christ returns and all are resurrected but it will be a human body. The clear teaching of Scripture and the Church is that the body will be reunited with the soul at the second coming.

I tend to think that the idea of a spirit body, which goes along with the idea that Jesus could walk through walls and doors, goes hand in hand with gnosticism, ie; the body is evil. Gnostic ideas are very prevelent within Evangelicalism as trichotomy is probably the majority opinion in the church today.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

Before I answer that, tell me what you think Paul meant when he said Hymenaeus' teachings/beliefs that the resurrection had already happened was gangrenous, and that he was turning him over to satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

 

[KMK]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

Not sure what they believed but even if they did that would not make it okay. These men were right about a number of things but not everything. The idea of a "spiritual resurrection and afterlife" goes against Paul's arguments in 1 Cor 15. Our bodies may not be the same when Christ returns and all are resurrected but it will be a human body. The clear teaching of Scripture and the Church is that the body will be reunited with the soul at the second coming.

I tend to think that the idea of a spirit body, which goes along with the idea that Jesus could walk through walls and doors, goes hand in hand with gnosticism, ie; the body is evil. Gnostic ideas are very prevelent within Evangelicalism as trichotomy is probably the majority opinion in the church today.

I agree with you on each point. I believe in a 'bodily resurrection'. I believe that 1 Cor 15:44 says we will experience a physical resurrection whereby we will be driven by the affections of the spirit and not the flesh.

My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?

 

[KMK]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

Before I answer that, tell me what you think Paul meant when he said Hymenaeus' teachings/beliefs that the resurrection had already happened was gangrenous, and that he was turning him over to satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

I am not arguing with you, Mr. Manata. I agree with what you have written. Entering into an argument with you would be like trying to fight a land war in Russia!

 

[wsw201]

My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?

Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.

Every Hyper-preterist I've ever met has been a Calvinist.

Almost every heretic was "no slouch" when it came to reading and understanding (depending on how you're using 'understanding').

The point I am making is reading everything else from Krall is pretty much spot on in regards to orthodoxy. And he is not just a bandwagon interent theologian.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Has anyone listened to the Resurrection debate on Covenant Radio between Gregg Strawbridge and Don Preston?

 

[Amazing Grace]

My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?

Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.

WSW: What is the distinction you are making here? Are you saying that one tenant of HP does not make it damnable, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Let it be known that I am not defending hyper-preterism. But what I would like to explore further is whether the belief in a 'spiritual' resurrection and afterlife is 'damnable heresy'. Did not Origin and Ambrose and Augustine and in fact most Christians until the Reformation believe in a 'Spiritual Vision' model of the eternal state? (I borrow this term from Craig Blaising)

Before I answer that, tell me what you think Paul meant when he said Hymenaeus' teachings/beliefs that the resurrection had already happened was gangrenous, and that he was turning him over to satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

I am not arguing with you, Mr. Manata. I agree with what you have written. Entering into an argument with you would be like trying to fight a land war in Russia!

That wasn't my point. You asked if it was damnable heresy. I asked what you make of Paul's claim. That is, what do you think he was saying about Hymenaeus?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul, would krall be a rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic? Like I said, his site has some fantastic articles on topics other than eschatology. From reading him, I know he is no slouch when it comes to study and understanding.

Every Hyper-preterist I've ever met has been a Calvinist.

Almost every heretic was "no slouch" when it came to reading and understanding (depending on how you're using 'understanding').

The point I am making is reading everything else from Krall is pretty much spot on in regards to orthodoxy. And he is not just a bandwagon interent theologian.

Well, I'd rather read the Helms, Wares, Schreiners, Carsons, Grudems, Pipers, Frames, Hortons, Moos, Whites, Crisps, Wellums, and that's just the living guys, than "dudes on the internet."

But, if you're strong enough and confident in your eschatological hermeneutics, and you find his other material edifying and profitable for your Calvinist theology and apologetics, then I guess read his stuff.

The point I was making was in regards to your question about whether krall would be a "rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic."

My answer was, "No, he wouldn't, since every hyper-preterist I've met is 'hard core' calvinistic."

 

[wsw201]

My question is, is a belief that we are raised to a spiritual eternal state 'damnable heresy'? I agree that it is error, but is it heresy?

Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.

WSW: What is the distinction you are making here? Are you saying that one tenant of HP does not make it damnable, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

The distinction that I'm making is between a full preterist and someone who is not a full preterist, ie; they believe that there is a second coming (not 70 AD), that there is a resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and earth are after the second coming, etc. etc. but may have been influenced by modern gnostic evangelicalism and really don't know how to handle what our future state will be like (spirit body like a ghost versus a glorified physical body). Therefore a person who only holds to the idea that we are going to be floating around as disembodied spirits in eternity is holding to a heretical position but that position may not be damnable. Unfortunately the spirit body for all eternity is not an exclusive position of HP. I would hazzard to guess a lot of Christians buy into it. It is part of the gnosticism that is apart of today's broadly Evangelical church like trichotomy.

Am I being as clear as mud?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Full preterism is a damnable heresy. If one does not hold to full preterism but believes that we get some sort of spirit body at the resurrection (gnosticism) then it may not be damnable but it is heretical.

WSW: What is the distinction you are making here? Are you saying that one tenant of HP does not make it damnable, but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts?

The distinction that I'm making is between a full preterist and someone who is not a full preterist, ie; they believe that there is a second coming (not 70 AD), that there is a resurrection of the dead, the new heavens and earth are after the second coming, etc. etc. but may have been influenced by modern gnostic evangelicalism and really don't know how to handle what our future state will be like (spirit body like a ghost versus a glorified physical body). Therefore a person who only holds to the idea that we are going to be floating around as disembodied spirits in eternity is holding to a heretical position but that position may not be damnable. Unfortunately the spirit body for all eternity is not an exclusive position of HP. I would hazzard to guess a lot of Christians buy into it. It is part of the gnosticism that is apart of today's broadly Evangelical church like trichotomy.

Am I being as clear as mud?

Very clear....

Is there a DNA of HP tenants? Forinstance, if we tok tulip and one did not adhere to the "p" can we do that with HPers?

 

[KMK]

Before I answer that, tell me what you think Paul meant when he said Hymenaeus' teachings/beliefs that the resurrection had already happened was gangrenous, and that he was turning him over to satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

I am not arguing with you, Mr. Manata. I agree with what you have written. Entering into an argument with you would be like trying to fight a land war in Russia!

That wasn't my point. You asked if it was damnable heresy. I asked what you make of Paul's claim. That is, what do you think he was saying about Hymenaeus?

Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)

 

[KMK]

Every Hyper-preterist I've ever met has been a Calvinist.

Almost every heretic was "no slouch" when it came to reading and understanding (depending on how you're using 'understanding').

The point I am making is reading everything else from Krall is pretty much spot on in regards to orthodoxy. And he is not just a bandwagon interent theologian.

Well, I'd rather read the Helms, Wares, Schreiners, Carsons, Grudems, Pipers, Frames, Hortons, Moos, Whites, Crisps, Wellums, and that's just the living guys, than "dudes on the internet."

But, if you're strong enough and confident in your eschatological hermeneutics, and you find his other material edifying and profitable for your Calvinist theology and apologetics, then I guess read his stuff.

The point I was making was in regards to your question about whether krall would be a "rare breed since his soteriology is hard calvinistic."

My answer was, "No, he wouldn't, since every hyper-preterist I've met is 'hard core' calvinistic."

They must be so, BTW, because the doctrine election is the glue that holds together their insistance that final judgment for all happened in AD 70.

 

[KMK]

I think you might be painting them with a bit of a broad brush here. I think hyper-preterists would argue that it is a bodily resurrection, but looks a little different than our current bodies. They would point out that the resurrected Jesus is able to appear and disappear and walk through walls etc. (I am not defending their argument)

Jesus was a physical model or picture of the resurrection that will happen to us, they say. The actually say that the "resurrection of the dead" is what we'd call "regeneration." They believe that you are resurrected in the final resurrection from the dead sense. That's the majority belief, the party line. Here's from a Hyper-preterist discussion board:

"The passage you quoted does not say that "the resurrection of Jesus BODY begat in us a hope." It is speaking to the resurrection of Jesus THE PERSON."

"The “personal” resurrection of Jesus proved that He overcame death (“spiritual death”, our spiritual death) and is what birthed the hope."

(Not providing the link, for obvious reasons.)

This is interesting. Wouldn't this line of thinking then lead to the notion that Jesus must have been 'spiritually dead'? How do they torture Scripture to make that stick?

 

[Jim Johnston]

I think you might be painting them with a bit of a broad brush here. I think hyper-preterists would argue that it is a bodily resurrection, but looks a little different than our current bodies. They would point out that the resurrected Jesus is able to appear and disappear and walk through walls etc. (I am not defending their argument)

Jesus was a physical model or picture of the resurrection that will happen to us, they say. The actually say that the "resurrection of the dead" is what we'd call "regeneration." They believe that you are resurrected in the final resurrection from the dead sense. That's the majority belief, the party line. Here's from a Hyper-preterist discussion board:

"The passage you quoted does not say that "the resurrection of Jesus BODY begat in us a hope." It is speaking to the resurrection of Jesus THE PERSON."

"The “personal” resurrection of Jesus proved that He overcame death (“spiritual death”, our spiritual death) and is what birthed the hope."

(Not providing the link, for obvious reasons.)

This is interesting. Wouldn't this line of thinking then lead to the notion that Jesus must have been 'spiritually dead'? How do they torture Scripture to make that stick?

KMK,

That was one of the points I raised in the link I provided on page 1 of this thread - Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-preterism. See [ I ] and [ K ].

 

[Jim Johnston]

I am not arguing with you, Mr. Manata. I agree with what you have written. Entering into an argument with you would be like trying to fight a land war in Russia!

That wasn't my point. You asked if it was damnable heresy. I asked what you make of Paul's claim. That is, what do you think he was saying about Hymenaeus?

Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)

If Hymenaeus remained unrepentant, where would his final destiny lie?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)

Let's also remember that a motivation against false and improper teaching is that teachers would be judged more strictly than the laymen. If the judgment has passed, where is my motivation to make sure I'm careful in my studies, accurately representing the truth?

 

[KMK]

Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)

Let's also remember that a motivation against false and improper teaching is that teachers would be judged more strictly than the laymen. If the judgment has passed, where is my motivation to make sure I'm careful in my studies, accurately representing the truth?

Good point. In there opinion 99.9999% of all preachers 'shall be saved; yet so as by fire.' When is that 'fire' supposed to happen?

 

[KMK]

That wasn't my point. You asked if it was damnable heresy. I asked what you make of Paul's claim. That is, what do you think he was saying about Hymenaeus?

Hymeneus was a man who did not have the knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34) and was engaged in subverting his hearers (2 Tim 2:14) with his profane and vain babblings (2 Tim 2:16) about how the resurrection had passed (2 Tim 2:18) through which his hearers were increased in ungodliness (2 Tim 2:16) even to the point of their faith being overthrown (2 Tim 2:18) for which Paul delivered him over to Satan as an act of church discipline (1 Tim 1:20) and shunned (2 Tim 2:16) because his evil communication was corrupting the church's good manners. (1 Cor 15:33)

If Hymenaeus remained unrepentant, where would his final destiny lie?

With Satan...