Hyper Preterism Renounced

[Robert R. Higby]

Great thoughts, everyone!

I find Milt's statement that angels had bodies worthy of investigation. These beings are spirits not confined to a single body--yet they have a material dwelling that seems to be more than 'phantom.' According to many interpreters, not only did men lust after angels at Sodom, but angels lusted after the 'daughters of men' in the days of Noah. This is strange and mysterious but the Bible does not speak in terms strictly immaterial--even for the existence of souls whom we would term 'spirits.'

Doug:
indeed, He is the firstfruits. but a question that follows is what does this mean? does this refer to the ontological nature of it? does this refer to the physicalness of it or something else?

I would conclude that it is definitely both. There is still a transcendent element in Christ's resurrected body that goes beyond what those on earth witnessed. Christ in heaven today is in the same body but may not have exactly the same appearance in that heavenly dwelling. The glory of his person there is unveiled to the fullest, whereas here it was veiled, even in his resurrected state. Nonetheless, there is continuity.

The real issue in all this is whether God's ultimate (ontological) purpose in salvation is to transform and and redeem the material creation. It is not to speculate on exactly how much will remain as it is, how much will be totally gone, and how much will be radically transformed. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the present and future creation. But the future will redeem the present. It will not be 'wholly other,' an annihilation of the present, or material giving way to spiritual only (ideas, mind, and communion of eternal souls without material form).

Greek philosophy (and so many others) taught a definite afterlife in the realm of the 'soulish' or 'spiritual.' If the resurrection that Paul preached was simply 'life after death,' the Greeks would have had no problem with the doctrine. It was the teaching that God had inagurated the redemption of the material creation and physical humanity in the resurrection of Christ--this was what they laughed at as the ultimate idiocy.

i know what i think, but i'd like to hear how a preterist addresses the issue of what/how man was created in the beginnning? do they believe that we were only meant to be eternal in our spirit/mind/soul? is there any sense in which man is to be eternal materially or physically?

I would also. I do not get the impression that J. Stuart Russell of the last century (a major Preterist) believed in 'pure spirit' eschatology. Most of those I have read from more recent times (certainly Max King and others) definitely teach 'pure spirit' eschatology. They talk about the sin of wanting one's body back in any form.

A Preterist who confesses the redemption of the material creation would still have a measure of orthodoxy, in my view. However, this would certainly not solve the problems involved in preterist interpretations of scripture.

[Mr. Burns (GW)]

Hi all. Sorry so late to the discussion, but I just wanted to make a couple quick comments.

First, I did listen to the Birks/Gene Cook debate in its entirety, and I have to say that I heard nothing there that could push one into a dogmatic stance either way. Much was left unresolved, and the issues were only really just starting to be dealt with. So, I hope no one has adopted a concrete stance from that debate.

My other comment is in response to a previous post here on Resurrection that seems to cite the Book of Job as a support. I wish to point out that the Book of Job does not address the doctrine of the general resurrection. Period. Many scholars like F.F. Bruce, J.R. Dummelow and others address this head on in their commentaries. In a nutshell, Job's skin was destroyed by his boils from satan that covered his body from head to toe (Job 2:7; Job 30:30) and at the end of his life Job's Vindicator did "rise upon the dust," and Job saw Him as he hoped would happen (Job 38:1 and Job 42:5). The vindicator (Go-el) came and vindicated Job's cause (Job 42:7-10). Job's hope was for a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him (Job 10:9; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 19:25-27). Although he could not know for certain, Job believed by faith that even once the burning boils had removed his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happened at the end of the book.

[disciple]

please allow me to ramble for a bit of my thoughts on 1 Co 15. it may not be very coherent as i'm sort of thinking out loud and dumping ideas out, but here goes anyway:

v. 35 introduces the whole discussion on the nature of the bodies of the resurrection of the dead. paul seems to be interacting with an interlocutor perhaps with a view much like that of the Sadduccees. in a similar manner as Jesus in His dealings with the resurrection denying Sadduccees in Mt 22:23ff, paul quickly demonstrates their misunderstanding of the apostolic view of the resurrection. they seemed to think (mistakenly so) that the apostolic view was that the after-life would be just like it was on earth--fleshly bodies, marriage, and all (just like the Sadduccees misunderstood the Pharisees and Jesus). paul's reply, just as jesus', dealt with this misconception. and they both describe that things will not be exactly the same though they'll still be physical/material.

we know that we will have bodies (we will not be disembodied spirits) from both the words of paul and jesus, but the exact nature of those bodies is not dealt with. we only know that they will be incorruptible, i.e., they will not be flesh. so it is my personal opinion that both preterist and futurist tries to make this text say more than it is saying.

please allow me to further say that i think we all need to be careful that we don't press the metaphors paul uses here too far and beyond what paul meant by them. this is a common error in hermeneutics. we must exercise caution here and try and figure out the theme of his argument. he uses such metaphors as a seed (vv. 37-38, 42-44), different types of flesh (v. 39), stars and planets (vv. 40-41), an exchange or transaction (vv. 51-52), and putting on clothes (vv. 53-54).

the point in vv. 37-38, 42-44 seems to be that as a seed (cf. corruptible body) that is sown turns into a plant (cf. incorruptible body; its result or goal), so man dies and the death is not the goal.

the point of v. 39-41 seems to be that he is hilighting that the "kind of body" in the resurrection is unlike that of that before death. vv. 51-54 speak of a trading/changing of one body for another (vv. 51-52; ALLASSW) and putting on a new body (vv. 53-54) hilighting again that the resurrection body will not be this fleshly body (thereby dealing with the main contention brought out in v. 35, which is the same objection that the Sadduccees had).

therefore, i don't think that paul is here spelling out the exact nature of that body (since that is a mystery, v. 51), he is only hilighting that this resurrection will occur (in the future of his writing), it will be a body, and it will be different that their current bodies (in some way as it will not be corruptible).

i think all of the arguments about coming out of graves, violent deaths, organ transplants, dead babies, etc. are all rabbit trails and distract from the nature of paul's argument. he's addressing a very specific interlocutor. we mustn't assume that he is going to answer every conceivable question we may have on the matter.

we need to be content with the fact that: (1) there will be a resurrection of the dead; (2) the resurrection of the dead will be different in nature than the bodies than we currently have. beyond that, i don't think the question is explicitly answered. i definitely don't think that we could get from this that the resurrection of the dead will be bodiless (i.e., disembodied spirits). i think we were created to be creaturely (i.e., physical) and this applies to our eternal nature. only God is pure spirit and therefore omnipresent. i also don't think that we can get from this text that we will have the numerically same body (whatever that might mean). i think all that we can get from this text is that somehow our bodies will give way to new/renewed bodies that will be incorruptible. the point is though that these bodies will still be us and they will still be physical (though not earthly, corruptible, or flesh).

[wildboar]

I decided to get out my H. A. W. Meyer commentary on this text, and was pretty impressed with how he dealt with it. I believe his work is out of print, but it can still be found at most good theological libraries and is pretty easy to obtain on the used market. He deals extensively with the Greek text and refers to Latin works, so some of my quotes will be my own translation and it doesn't quite come out in translation because of the interplay between psuche and pneuma.

He shows that the body must be spoken of as being sown and so it must also be that which is resurrected in this passage. The sowing pretty clearly is a reference to burial. He notes that a spiritual body is certainly different from an ethereal body. "...but a spiritual body, inasmuch as the spirit, the power of supersensuous, eternal life (the true, imperishable life), in which the Holy Spirit carries on the work of regeneration and sanctification (Rom. 8:16, 17), will be its life-principle and the determining element of its whole nature. In the earthly body the natrual, not the spiritual, is that which conditions its constitution and its qualities, so that it is framed as the organ of the natural; in the resurrection-body the reverse is the case; the spritual, for whose life-activity it is the adequate organ, conditions its nature, and the natural has ceased to be, as formerly, the ruling determining element."

He also believes that the double esti is used to mirror rabinnic teaching. There is a textual variant here 'ei' is not found in the Byzantine text type or in the text behind the KJV but is found in the text behind modern versions, but I think the idea of 'ei' is implied regardless of its presence. Meyer translates and writes:
"If it is true that there is a pyschical body, then there is also a spiritual body, then such a body cannot be a non-ens--according to the mutually conditioning relations of the antithesis...The logical correctness of the sentence, again, depends upon the presupposition (ver. 42 f.) that the present and the future body stand in the relation of counterparts to each other. If, therefore there exists a psychical body (and that is the present one), then a pneumatic body also must be no mere idea, but really existent (and that is the resurrection-body)."

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Brandan Kraft]

The fallout from my article is still going... Here is the latest - planetpreterist has picked it up...

http://planetpreterist.com/modules.p...hold=0&catid=5

I also received an e-mail today from John Anderson - host of the radio show called "through Voice of Reason". I don't know much about it, but I've been asked to discuss the issues with Don Preston (BIG LEAGUE Preterist).

I would appreciate your advice and prayers.

I recently read your denouncing of "hyper preterism". I am the host of through Voice of Reason radio broadcast heard across the nation thru our vatious am and fm affialiates as well as 3 shortwave networks. I want to personally invite you to come on our program with Don K Preston a full preterist to discuss the issues you brought forth in you article.

In His Grace
John Anderson
xxx-xxx-xxxx

[bgamall]

Hyperpreterism is gnosticism in another form than early gnosticism. I view it as being as outside Christian truth as is eternal generation and law preaching.

[Skeuos Eleos]

Brandan,

Be assured of my prayers - feeble though they may be.

My first comment before considering whether to accept the invitation would be to be confident that you can answer all of the objections against your article raised on that thread on Planet Preterist. Several of them are to do with the scriptural basis for effectively declaring full preterists unregenerate. I certainly couldn't answer them all without further prayer and study but then I haven't really looked into Full Preterism as you have. Looking at how many posts there have been I would expect that to cover most of the points that he might throw at you in the debate so that would help with your preparation.

My other comment is that if Preterism is a modern resurgence of an old "gangrene" than this would appear to be a God-given opportunity for some "surgery". At least one of the posters in that forum appears not to be fully convinced about full preterism so if even one struggling brother is helped to make up their mind through further discussion then wouldn't it be worth the effort in preparation?

Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus,
Martin

[bgamall]

The essence of Preterism is that they take the prophesy that says that the coming of Christ and the Judgement of Israel take place at the same time. The prophesy is unclear, however, 2 Peter is very clear on the distinction between the two.

To clarify. The prophesy does not say they take place at the same time, but it is a general prophesy that puts them together. This is clarified by Peter who speaks of the end of the world in different terms than the prophesy speaks of the end of Israel.

[disciple]

Just listened to another AWESOME debate between partial preterist/amill Gene Cook and full preterist H.L. James. I have placed it on the website for download. If you're still struggling with this issue, please listen to this debate.

Get this 6 MB mp3 here: GET THIS 6 MB MP3 HERE: (Right Click - choose "save target as..") http://www.5solas.org/mp3/Preterism_Debate_2.mp3

brandan-
do you happen to have part 2 of this debate???

[Brandan Kraft]

Wow I forgot all about this - you sure there are two parts?

[disciple]

Wow I forgot all about this - you sure there are two parts?

yeah. i found it here:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...nID=4100213125

[Dee Dee Warren]

I am a hit and run poster in that I am busier than I can believe, but I am posting to through my full support behind Brandan. His post was a tremendous encouragement to me. I had a while back came to the same conclusions which can be read about here:

www.tektonics.org/hythere.html