hyperpreterism and heresy

[openairboy]

Originally posted by VERITAS

Originally posted by openairboy
Gentry in his article on the transition texts points to "days of Noah" as being peaceful, etc., but I can't buy that. Genesis 6 tells us, "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." Instead of being a time of peace, ...it was a time of violence and chaos.

KUDOS, Keith, for such a brilliant observation! Did you come to that conclusion based on creeds/confessions or the "me and my bible" principle?

I guess I came to that conclusion reading the Bible, because I am unaware of any of the Church's creeds or confessions specifically addressing this verse. But "me and my Bible" taught me that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, so when initially confronted by this heresy I said, "Why hasn't the pillar and foundation of truth believed this filth, flarn, filth for 2,000 yrs? In fact, its teachings directly contradict this." What a sham for the pillar and foundation of truth to mess up one of her basic pillars. A lot more could be said, but the Bible definitely led me away from solo scriptura.

openairboy

 

[VanVos]

Here is John Owen's comments on 2 Pet 3:

Dr. John Owen (1616-1683) On the 'New Heavens and Earth.' (2 Peter iii. 13)

The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.

' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.

'3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.

' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.

This being the design of the place, I shall not insist longer on the context, but briefly open the words proposed, and fix upon the truth continued in them.

First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.

There is no outward constitution nor frame of things in government or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share.'*

* Dr. Owen's Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11. Works, folio, Reprinted 1721.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Areopagus
Jonathan,

Do you have a scholarly work that I might look at that explains the view you take in 2 Pet. 3?

Thanks,

Dustin...

Dustin,

I don't know of any scholarly treatments for that position, but John Owen did write a piece defending an ad 70 fullfilment in V. 9 p. 131+ (I think it is, b/c I just looked up the index reference). Vern Crisler has witten against it (here).

I agree with Crisler.

openairboy

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[VanVos]

Originally posted by VERITAS
I love your post, Jonathan - the clarification - and I would tend to agree (although I tend toward the opposite view of the passage in 2 Peter 3:10-13), but what about the gates "not being shut" in Rev 21. To me that also speaks of the Gospel Age. One day the gates (or the door) will be shut, the temporal will cease and eternity (for us) will begin (1 Cor 15:53-54).

The gates not being shut speak of our unlimited access to God in the New Jerusalem. I still think that we still await future fulfillment of Rev 21. Also it's interesting to note that Gal 4:26 describe Jerusalem as above where Rev 21:2 describe it as coming down. In other words right now we have access to the New Jerusalem by the Spirit Eph 2:4-6, Heb 12:22 but will enjoy it in all it's glory in the future, in a glorified creation Rev 21:10.

VanVos

 

[bigheavyq]

boy, I didn't know I would touch such a nerve with this topic.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Charismatic Calvinist

Originally posted by houseparent
I understand the concern, but as a Calvinist, I have never been warned to avoid Hyper-Calvinism. It's as if most assume the average Calvinist knows that hyper-Calvinism is hersey, but the preterist needs many warnings.

No doubt! What is the deal with that anyway? I'm hearing you on this one, Adam.

well then, let me be the first to warn you


One should be ever watchful of himself and his doctrine. Paul tells Timothy to watch his life AND doctrine. Paul tells us that Hymanaeus' teachings are like gangrene. We should be discerning about *all* our beliefs and never think that we are above falling into grave error. So, I have no problem warning people. I would hope others would do the same for me here. Let us not be arrogant and think that we are above apostacising. Sin can come in various forms. Sin is deceitful. Our heart is deceteful. We need to always keep watch and have a patrol many pacing the outer wall of our theological fortress.

and just to add my own to the pile of pennies:

Try to look at it from the other Christian's point of view they may be proud true, but they are doing their duty on some level by calling you (or us) to be watchful.

And Paul...speaking of corrections...it's deceitful not deceteful. Let the other vowels have their place.

 

[Ianterrell]

:bigsmile:

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by Paul manata
only if you equivocate on my statement about "me and my Bible" which was qualified by "like the cults have" (e.g., mormonism, JW's, etc). You should really seek to make sure you're not arguing against straw men.

Why are you menfolk so touchy over here? I'm not arguing for or against any straw men and I'm not equivocating nor did I even have your original post in mind, Paul. I was just stating my pleasure at Keith's observation because it is something that I've never considered before and because he came to that conclusion based on a comparison of Scripture with Scripture - what I mean by the "me and my bible" principle.

I understand what you guys are getting at, but the problem doesn't lay in "my bible" part of the equation, but in the "me" part and that is rampant in all of us because of our fallen natures as Dan said.

My point was akin to something my father quipped just yesterday, when we were discussing something some author had written, "it is amazing what light the Bible can shed on commentaries." (I could just as easily say creeds or confessions. Which was what Jonathan was alluding to in the opening post.)

Entiendo?

And BTW, I didn't reject hyper-preterism because of the historical witness of the church (even though that DID play into my thinking). Ultimately we must reject heresy based on the Word of God, for when we DO stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ no plea to ANYTHING the church has ever said will hold sway. (Of course, neither will our faulty interpretations! )

And I guess while I'm at it I'll clarify that the reason I loved VanVos' post was because he used a CLEAR passage that speaks of the creation being redeemed (Rom 8:19-21). It's that kind of hermeneutic that I appreciate. In light of things like that I can afford to be agnostic for a while on whether the NH and NE are a literal future reality or symbolic language of the Gospel Age.

 

[VERITAS]

I think you would lose most of your hearers, HPs or otherwise, if you have to go into all of that. Besides, it seems to me that your argument can be used against you because as you said there are "divisions" in orthodox circles over many things. Unity between believers is in the essentials and the greatest decimation to hyper-preterism is their denial of THE essential of essentials - namely, the resurrection. Or as Paul, the apostle says, "if Christ be not raised, then your faith is vain [empty, profitless, an idol]; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor 15:17)

It is belief in the resurrection that is a REQUIREMENT to be a Christian and thus be reconciled to God. Any other arguments are nice addendums, but they can't trump the NECESSITY.

Also, most of the early hyper-prets were (or were influenced by) Campbellite reconstructionists who were never dispsensational in the first place (Max King, Don Preston, Ed Stevens, etc.). They aren't worried about theological constructs or fancy arguments, their desire is to get back to a simplicity of doctrine that they envision was the norm during the early church.

The same could be said for your argument about lying=teaching/promoting false doctrines because if there are divisions in the church (and you admitted that there were), then by necessity those who believe the exact opposite of another are also liars (e.g. baptists vs paedobaptists; Calvinists vs Arminians, CT vs NCT, etc.) and one group must be wrong and therefore outside THE camp.

No, the resurrection is (and has been) the starting point from which to defeat this heresy, this gangrene. It is the nuclear bomb with all of this other stuff being tangential - the exegetical "mopping up" campaign. It is this issue that they try to get around by using the similiar language employed regarding regeneration. It is this issue that they've continually tried to tweak and remake. Make them deal with the 40+ texts where the actual word resurrection/anastasis is used, the nature of such employed by the other words in the passage and make them address that! IF after all of that, IF they will admit that the New Testament view of the nature of the resurrection is physical, then they will be face-to-face with their heresy and if they reject it then, then they reject it to their peril.

Grace and Peace,
--Cheri

http://www.preterism.org/resurrection/index.htm

http://www.preterism.org/resurrection/index2.htm

P.S. Conversely having a firm grasp on the nature of the resurrection is the best antidote and preventative treatment for Christians who are struggling with these issues.

 

[openairboy]

For a treatment of the pros and cons of seeing v. 36 as a "transition text", you can check out 'Dee Dee Warrens' commentary.

 

[VERITAS]

Hey Keith, I just wanted to tell you that I like your website. No articles beyond your blog? "Dee Dee" (which is not her real name) is a friend of mine and a little over a year ago when she was thinking of creating her own forum the name you now own was one that I suggested to her because it represents a meeting place of ideas and because Paul preached to them The Resurrection. Very cool.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by VERITAS
Hey Keith, I just wanted to tell you that I like your website. No articles beyond your blog? "Dee Dee" (which is not her real name) is a friend of mine and a little over a year ago when she was thinking of creating her own forum the name you now own was one that I suggested to her because it represents a meeting place of ideas and because Paul preached to them The Resurrection. Very cool.

Thanks for the complement. I hope to start writing more, but I have been wandering around for the past few years and it is finally time to get my life going.

I have interacted with "Dee Dee" over hyper-preterism via her discussion board. She seems like a good kid.

openairboy