Preston believes that the resurrection occurred in 70ad which is EXACTLY the same problem Paul addresses of Hymenaeus and Philetus. This is a HUGE assumption on the part of Preston. First, if Hymenaeus and Philetus believed the resurrection was a past event, how could they not believe it was spiritual in nature. Preston is right to say,"They were not affirming the past occurrence of the end of the physical cosmos." And whose to say their view is not exactly the same concept maintained by Preterists. Their critical mistake was their claim that a spiritual resurrection was a mere past event which is a common declaration that Preterists make. It is very ironic that the justification for their system, which believes a spiritual resurrection is past is no different than that which Paul condemns. If the spiritual resurrection is past, how can we individually be resurrected. Was that not Paul's point?
Don Preston A Study of the Resurrection
In 2 Timothy 2:18 Paul addressed the problem of Hymenaeus and Philetus; they maintained that the resurrection had already occurred. It should be clear to any thinking person that these two could not maintain with any degree of success — or a straight face — that the modern traditional concept of the resurrection had occurred. If the resurrection is an "end of time" event, then for these men to insist it had already occurred was to invite ridicule beyond measure. Why didn't Paul just say, "Look around! The graveyards are still full."? But if the resurrection is related to the death Paul addresses in vs. 11, it is understandable how these men could make such a claim and it be believed.
Since it is undeniable that the death of verse 11 could not be physical but must be spiritual, Hymenaeus and Philetus must have reasoned that since spiritual life was "already" then the resurrection must have already fully occurred. Had not Paul told the Ephesians they had been raised from the dead, Eph. 2:1? Remember, Paul was writing Timothy who was in Ephesus. The connection between Hymenaeus' teaching and what Paul had written to the church of which he was a member is very probable. Had Paul not told the Romans that Christ had delivered them from the "law of sin and death" Romans 8:1f? Had he not written to the Colossians that in baptism they had put off "the body of flesh," Col. 2:11-12? And had not Paul said in this very epistle that Christ had "abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" 2 Tim. 1:10? Surely the resurrection was past already. It is in this context that Hymenaeus and Philetus can be properly understood. They were not affirming the past occurrence of the end of the physical cosmos. They were affirming — prematurely — the full revelation of salvation.
http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=124&Itemid=61
In David Green's own words "IF futurism is true and the Resurrection has not yet happened since the time that Paul wrote II Tim. 2:17,18, then preterism is indeed -- in the words of II Tim. 2:17,18 -- "ungodliness," "gangrene," a deviation from the Truth, and a Faith-overthrowing doctrine. If the Resurrection of II Tim. 2:17,18 has still not yet happened, then preterists are certainly heretics." http://www.preteristcosmos.com/if-futurism-is-true.html
