A Critique of Tony Warren and His Article for Amillennialism

[thethinker]

On the "Dispensationalists and the Resurrection" thread we were referred to an Article by Tony Warren titled AMILLENNIALISM: A DIRECT WORD FROM THE SCRIPTURES. But is Amillennialism really "A direct word from the Scriptures"? I say that it is not. It is certainly the most preferrable of all the futurist positions. I held to the historical Amillennialism position for many years. But it is error like all the other futurist schools of thought.
I want to critique one statement made by Warren in the article but before I do I want to say that Warren misrepresents the Full Preterist position. Warren said this: "Full Preterists spiritualize Matthew 24 as having already taken place in the past and believe that Christ actually returned in AD70 fulfilling the prophecy of the second advent." The charge that Full Preterists "spiritualize" Matthew 24 is blatantly false. Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and we take that most literal. Jesus told His disciples this generation would not pass away till all be fulfilled. Full Preterists take this literally too. Jesus included His second advent in this statement. In John 16 Jesus told His disciples that He would go away and return to them in a "little while". He said also that some of them would remain alive when He returned (Matthew 16). He told Caiaphas the high priest that he would witness His advent. So yes, Full Preterists believe that Christ "actually" returned in AD70. But this is the result of our literalism. What we believe is that Christ did NOT return visibly in a physical body. If Warren thinks that Full Preterists believe that Christ "actually" returned in a visible, physical body he is wrong. He exchanged His physical body for His spiritual body when He ascended to heaven and was glorified. According to Paul the new body is invisible (or unseen), 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:5. Therefore, Christ's second advent would be both actual and visible only in the signs that accompanied it.

Now Warren said this early on in his article: Christ instituted His kingdom reign by His death, resurrection, and ascension to the throne of David, and it will be fully realized and manifested at His second coming."
But the "direct word from the Scripture" is that Christ's kingdom has been fully realized ALREADY. The Bible's own timing of things requires this conclusion.

The kingdom is "fully realized" when the last enemy of the Christian is destroyed. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. Therefore, the kingdom is "fully realized" at the resurrection. The resurrection was to occur soon from the standpoint of the first Christians. I offer as undeniable proof the following Scripture passages:
John 5:16-30. In this passage Jesus said that the resurrection was near. He stated this more than once. Note especially verse 25, "Truly I say to you, the hour is coming and NOW IS when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live.... Note that Jesus said that he was speaking "truly" when He said that the time "now is" for the dead to hear His voice. If that did not happen then Jesus obviously was not speaking the truth. The Amillennialists say that the resurrection mentioned is spiritual. Yet Warren says that the Full Preterists spiritualize.

Acts 24:28. Paul told felix that the resurrection was about to happen. Paul used the Greek word which indicates the near future. "I have a hope in God, which they themselves [the Jews] also accept, that the resurrection is ABOUT to be of both the just and the unjust." It is unfortunate that our translations render the word "mello" as a simple future verb. It is a near future verb and is used also when Jesus said that the Son of Man is ABOUT TO BE (mello) betrayed into the hands of sinners. "Mello" is consistently a near future verb throughout the New Testament.
The Greek "mello" is used of the judgment also in Acts 24:25. Paul told Felix that the judgment too was about to happen. Paul told Timothy that Christ "was about to judge the living and the dead", 2 Timothy 4:1. The judgment is contemporaneous with the resurrection. Both were about to happen from the standpoint of the first Christians. This all indicates that the kingdom has been fully realized contrary to Warren's futurist presuppositions.

Now there you have it. We know that the kingdom has been "fully realized" because the last enemy has been destroyed.

thethinker

[momoz]

thethinker,
That's just it. They all seemed to have misunderstood each other or disagreed with each other. I read a book years ago, now I remember, over this subject. I remember when I was done reading it, I just walked away from this whole entire subject.
In your own words, please tell me what are your thoughts concerning the future, just in plain language.
I know the position of the Dispensationalists (overall) fairly well, but as for the rest, I am quite confused. I know that Darth disallowed the promotion of Preterists' views ( I never even heard of this view before I participated in this forum ),so may be if you care to briefly tell me how you see the future, without having to bring in any theological stand.
thx

[Robert R. Higby]

To thethinker: You have been warned that we do not tolerate a promotion of full preterism on this board. All of these issues have been adequately dealt with in past threads. You present these doctrines as if there has been no well-reasoned refutation of them by scholars who love the gospel. Full Preterism is Gnosticism pure and simple. It teaches an eschatology of pure spirit and denies cosmic redemption of the material creation in the future eschaton. We will not tolerate promotion of that garbage here any more than we will tolerate a denial of the Trinity.

[wildboar]

Unfortunately the full preterists don't seem to be able to tell the difference between Tang and Salvator Dopplebock (yes both are liquids). It seems that by yelling futurist we are all supposed to run so far from the dispensationalists that we jump off the cliff into full preterism. To call anyone who is not a full preterist a futurist is absurd and does not help the discussion. Both dispensationalism and preterism pick and choose which passages they will interpret literalistically. Both abandon the regula fidei. Both are outside of the bounds of historic Christianity. Bot take the Tradition 0 position. Dispensationalism and Preterism are far more alike than even amillennialism and postmillennialism. There is another good book edited by Mathison on the subject of preterism, I highly recommend it.

[Highlyfavored]

Unfortunately the full preterists don't seem to be able to tell the difference between Tang and Salvator Dopplebock

I'll take the Dopplebock!

This just goes to show y'all I ain't no preterist.

[momoz]

LOOL, Tang I know, what's Salvator Dopplebock?
Yeah, I'm still waiting on the books I ordered, this subject is getting to be more interesting to me, I guess that's the good thing to have a forum like this. As I said earlier, I never even heard of Preterism,,Supralap..Infralap...before I encountered this Forum. I'm learning a lot. At my age, I don't take any 'ism' too quickly and seriously, specially the kind of 'isms' that turn the Elect into 'schisms', even in spirit. However, I do reckon that pure doctrine is essential for a Christian's growth in His grace and His knowledge.
Please keep showing me things that y'all ( a Texas touch ) see important for me to know in regards to this subject.

thethinker, Preterism or not, I'm happy that you tried to help.
momoz

[katoikei]

y'all dig a pretzel, with yor beer, ay. Sorry, Mod's I been thinking about preterists and pretzels all day long since I read this idea about death being already swallowed, and we have a packet of pretzels in the cupboard, I am going there now to crunch one...crunch this one too.

[thethinker]

To thethinker: You have been warned that we do not tolerate a promotion of full preterism on this board. All of these issues have been adequately dealt with in past threads. You present these doctrines as if there has been no well-reasoned refutation of them by scholars who love the gospel. Full Preterism is Gnosticism pure and simple. It teaches an eschatology of pure spirit and denies cosmic redemption of the material creation in the future eschaton. We will not tolerate promotion of that garbage here any more than we will tolerate a denial of the Trinity.

Mr. Higby,
I apologize for my failure to look more carefully at the posting policies of the Predestinarian Network. I was indeed out of line in advocating my Full Preterist views. It won't happen again. However, I would like to set the record straight. Your charge that Full Preterism is "gnosticism" is false. Your claim also that FP-ism teaches a doctrine that is "pure spirit" is also false.

Now I went back and read the posting policies as the result of your rebuke. I found the Articles of faith and discovered in them that there is no mention of your view of a "cosmic redemption of the material creation of the future eschaton." Since the statement of faith for this network says nothing about a supposed redemption of the material universe I should be free to post my view on this subject.

The idea that the material creation will be redeemed is based on obscure translation of Romans 8. Verses 21-23 says that the "whole creation" is under the bondage of corruption awaiting to be delivered out and brought into the manifestation of the sons of God. The word "whole creation here is "pasa ktisis" and is translated "every creature" in the Great Commission, (Mark 16:15). Christ did not tell His disciples to preach the gospel to the material creation, animals, birds, rocks, and the dust of the earth.

By "pasa ktisis" (every creature) Jesus meant that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles or "all nations".
Now in Romans chapters 1-8 Paul is proving to Jews that the Gentiles share in all the promises too. He said in 7:1 that he was speaking to them that "know the law", that is, the Jews. So he says that "every creature" ("pasa ktisis" i.e., the Gentiles) groans and waits for the redemption. So what is this redemption? Note what Paul says, "we ourselves also [that is, we Jews] are eagerly waiting for the redemption of the body". We see that this redemption is of "the body". Do you think that the animals and birds are waiting for the redemption of their bodies? Come on! Pasa ktisis means that the Gentiles as well as the Jews are eagerly waiting for the redemption of the body.

Many tell us that the New Heaven and the New earth is the material creation in its redeemed condition. If this is the case then why does death still exist? Why are sinners still present? "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth....For the child shall die one hundred years old, but the sinner being one hundred years shall be accursed" (Isaiah 65:17-21).

If the new earth is the material creation redeemed then why do people need to be healed? Why is the Gospel still being preached? "The leaves of the tree (of life) are for the healing of the nations....Whosoever will may come and take of the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:1-3 and 17).

I repeat that the Network's articles of faith say nothing about a supposed redemption of the material universe. So I think I have not violated any agreement in this post. God bless.

thethinker

[Robert R. Higby]

The Network's articles of faith are not exhaustive and do not cover every issue. We do not present them as a creed but a guideline.

In actual fact we tolerate a wide diversity of positions on eschatology. The extremes of hyper-dispensationalism, full preterism, and post-mil reconstructionism are the exception.

Your charge that Full Preterism is "gnosticism" is false. Your claim also that FP-ism teaches a doctrine that is "pure spirit" is also false.

I am very certain that it is true. I have posted from full preterists on these issues before. While initially denying it, in past discussions the FPs always admit that this is their position in the end.

We will not be going through this whole debate again but when I have time I will post some Gnostic teaching from Max King's "The Spirit of Prophecy".

[thethinker]

Someone said that it is understandable that a child be afraid of the dark. But there is nothing worse than a man who is afraid of the light.

thethinker

[katoikei]

Matthew 6:22-23