**It probably should be a further requirement that all posts on Preterists Debate Web Pages be addressed by name to either Partial preterists, Dispensationalist, Futurists, verses Full “and everything else” Preterists. Since mass confusion is created when a specific audience is intended, and the OP does not relate to the other two views, or in other words not all Futurists are Dispensationalist or even partial preterists, but the problem is most Preterists couldn’t tell you the difference between the three**
Now to the subject at hand…….
Most OP’s “for or to” Futurists, tend to miss each other like two locomotives going in opposite directions on a side by side tracks. Each person’s points go over the others head because one is going East and the other is going West and both only can see what is in front of them. (past, future) – You need to step of the train to see both.
***If you insist your view is correct when it comes from the paradigm, “all things fulfilled”, knowing the “futurists” rejects that foundation what’s the point of trying to correct the other?***
There are two things that causes these problems.
- Most Preterists coming from a “Church of Christ” misguided “Berean” mentality, reject scholarship as what is developed in a seminary platform as if they don’t need to learn from History, Historic systematic theology, the past or what others have taught. Since they are reinventing all forms of Theology, each person is allowed to learn on their own, without guidance or foundation in basic Hermeneutics or exegesis, then they are raked over the coals by other preterists who are also completely deficient in basic Hermeneutics and Exegesis, it reminds me of Jesus answer, “Let them alone; they are blind guides And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”, concerning the teaching of the Preterists oh I mean, Pharisees. because their view leads to IBV or CBV, IO, Anhilationism, Universalism, or other such nonsense.
There is no one universal creed or standard that even defines Preterist Theology.
This means these misguided folks, declare they have a “revelation” about something in scriptures and don’t even realize that was covered two thousand years ago and its nothing “new”. (Max King and his time statements, “this Generation”).
They declare seminary as “indoctrination” or “cloning” and reject their value, which is complete ignorance and shyposcricy as many of the Preterists leaders have all had some kind of “classroom” learning. From Michael Miano in his two-year program, to Preston and his MSOP, Ed Stevens who is recognized as “authority” on Church History with his Master’s Degree where he seeks to prove The Epistle of Barnabas was written pre-70 even though he talks of Jerusalem’s destruction as in the past, or Bell who abandoned the Theology of his school yet wants to use his degree as a basis of authority to teach the Preterist Paradigm. It’s absolutely hypocritical to reject past and formal teaching (people with degrees) and yet listen week after week to Dr. Preston’s “Morning Musings” which are intended to “teach”, or to read any book written by Preterists.
It becomes laughable when a so called “Teaching Leader” in Preterism declares that Strong’s is wrong in many areas without one day of class time in Greek. (What English reading – speaking person in their right mind tells “German reading – speaking” people they don’t know their own language? As a comparative example) By what authority does a Preterists who has never formally studied Greek, tell people who have proficiency in Greek their wrong about Greek? When a Preterist begins to give a lecture on “Proper Hermeneutics” it’s a joke. When they claim their view comes from Proper Exegesis, it’s a joke. Because they never went to school? No. it’s because they never achieved or demonstrated mastery of any of these skills to any preterist institute of learning let alone to other Preterists that qualifies them to be a “teacher”, and the minute they do “teach”, they expose their ignorance.
The second they start redefining words away from Strong’s and Thayer’s or trying to correct, (or any other Lexicon) it becomes a joke and proof they have no mastery of these skills.
2. The heart of the Issue, the one thing it all goes back to, the central “artery” is in proving their claim that Christ returned in A.D. 70. Not one preterists has proven with accuracy or skill that Christ returned.
Their whole system is that all things are fulfilled and yet they have not one shred of Historical evidence to collaborate their claims, and so when pressed they claim scriptures prove it had to happen in “That Generation” because Exegesis proves it. Point one above dispels this “Myth”.
When the Historical Record is brought up, they use Josephus to try and prove it was fulfilled while demonizing the Early Church Fathers. But it is well understood why ALL preterists must reject the Early Church Fathers; because not one supports any Full Preterists claims of fulfillment, because “they were all too dumb to know Christ returned in A.D. 70” This point alone disqualifies every Preterist “scholar” from having an equal footing in the academic world. No matter how much Preston seeks to gain legitimacy, Full Preterism will always be rejected.
If the full preterist took seriously the Early Church Fathers in their studies there would not be one Full Preterist left.
Sam Frost Recently has been dealing with The Resurrection of the Dead, Death, and the Coming of the Son of Man. In a follow up response Larry Siegle responded and demonstrated the failure in Logic that Sam addressed, and repeated the same failure without even realizing it.
If Preterists had studied and learned proper hermeneutics there would be no problem in understanding what death” is being talked about in any passage of Scriptures where death is talked about. Thayer’s makes a complete list of its usages in scriptures and the one is not to be confused with the other, as is the basis of Larry’s flawed response. He assumes that the futurists do not make the distinction between “death’s” plural.
- properly, the death of the body,i. e. that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul from the body by which the life on earth is ended:
2. metaphorically, the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name, i. e. “the misery of soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body.
3. the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell is called “Death”.
4. In the widest sense, death comprises all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth
The issues that Larry demonstrates is created by, again, a complete lack of understanding of the Death of Adam. I am going to make this very plain and easy to understand. It is the sound logic that proves along with the sound exegesis, that creates coherence and consistency in theology. The “Spiritual death” of Adam claim of interpretation is what creates inconsistency among scriptures that Larry is responding to, not knowing which is which.
In the Garden, God Threatened Adam and Eve with Physical death for eating from the tree of Good and evil. “to be put to death death,” 4191 [e] mō-wṯ מ֥וֹת 4191 [e] tā-mūṯ. תָּמֽוּת׃ (for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.) for the crime of eating of the tree of “good and Evil”. “Mowt, tamut” is a threat of physical death. (Sam has covered this before.)
The Preterist reasons that because Adam did not die on that day, then the death God threatened him with, could not have been Physical death, because Adam did not die in that day physically and God does not lie. Yet the words “Mowt Tamut” means “to be put to death” as a penalty for sin. Every time this phrase is used in Hebrew it indicates “physical death as punishment”. Let me repeat this:
Every time this phrase is used, “Mowt Tamut”, in Hebrew, it indicates “physical death as punishment”.
This cannot be redefined to mean “spiritual death” that results in a person dying 90 or 900 years later.
So did Adam die that day?
“21And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.”
Every Preterist refuses to accept that God initiated the Sacrificial system for sin in this verse. It is the same pattern established in the Law of Moses, an animal dies in man’s place to atone for sin. The day of atonement, two goats, one released the other killed, all models the imagery of the Sacrificial system where the man is released, and the animal dies in his place, pointing to Christ, the final sacrifice.
If the death of Adam is physical then it destroys every paradigm after and every theology concerning physical death being what Christ died for as proposed by Preterism. By saying Christ died to save us from “spiritual death” is a lie. The penalty for sin is not Spiritual death, the result of sin is spiritual death, it is not the penalty for sin.
Here is why!!
IF a person dies in his sin, with out confession to God, there is no hope for redemption. People are born “spiritually dead”, without “life” in God, which means they are under wrath and subject to judgment for sin that leads to the second death in which there is no redemption. IF Adam had been killed then the purposes of God would have ended in his creation of Adam. God does not throw away “mistakes” but seeks to redeem the lost.
If a person was killed the moment he was to sin, then there is no opportunity for redemption, since the person is physically dead. God looks past our sin in hopes for that redemption to come based upon a confession of faith, so the animal dies in his place, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.”.
If a person is put to death immediately for sin there is no hope of redemption. Without a confession of faith in Christ atoning death, a person dies and faces the second death, the Lake of Fire, where there is no redemption.
Christ experienced a physical death as the punishment for sin, he did not die Spiritually, as God cannot die spiritually. He was -put to death, in our place, in Adam’s place, for sin as the penalty for sin. “for the wages of sin is death” Romans 3:23
In order for Christ to die spiritual means he would have had to sin. Bearing the guilt of sin of others, did not make him guilty for sin causing his “spiritual death”.
Now I could add on this is the traditional reasoning as given by Theological scholars for generations in Protestant / Reformed theology but would that make a difference? See point 1 above.
Why deny Adams death was Physical?
Because then they would have to admit that Physical resurrection is the goal of the “Redemption of the body”, our lowly body being transformed into the likeness of his “Glorious body”. The completing of the adoption process is the transformation from mortal to immortal, from perishable to imperishable.
There was no physical resurrection in A.D. 70 BUT the Preterists demands a fulfillment of the “Resurrection of the dead”, therefore it was a “spiritual Resurrection of the dead ones out of Hades” that happened in the unseen realm. What follows then is a twisting of every scripture concerning “Resurrection of the Dead” to explain why it’s a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one, which then completely destroys the sound exegetical process and consistent Hermeneutics which the church has used to affirm the bodily resurrection of the saints. When the doctrine is demonstrated from scriptures in sound exegesis, like two train passing each other, the one barrels toward the ignorance of past fulfillment.
For Two Thousand years the church has taught a physical bodily return of Christ and of the physical resurrection of the dead through scriptures but two uneducated men read some time statements in the Bible and determined he had to have returned in A.D. 70, or Jesus was a “false prophet”, a position denied by the very men who lived through A.D. 70. The very sad part is people started believing the lie created by these two men. Now some seventy years later the “A.D. 70 doctrine” has been dismantled, exposed as a lie, and thoroughly refuted. Its adherents remain pathetically small and relatively unknown among Christianity, despite calls for “Reformation Now”. The established Seminaries and Colleges of every denomination have soundly rejected and labeled it “heresy” so we “Orthodox Christians” are still wrong, yet it was the Preterist who separated from Orthodox Christianity, and then declared the “orthodox” definition of Christianity, wrong.
Stephen Whitsett M.Div.