Dawson not unlike Preston ironically use II Tim. 2.17-18 in order to fight off futurist who believe a future physical resurrection. They don't even see that they open their own system to a huge attack which puts them in the cross heirs of Paul. While I agree with them that the resurrection is spiritual, it is funny they miss the fallacy in their own system that the spiritual resurrection is a past event. If Hymenaeus and Philetus believed the resurrection was in fact spiritual which Dawson and Preston admit, and Paul says no "stupid" a spiritual resurrection can't be a past event, how is it not ironic that Dawson and Preston using the exact same argument that Hymenaeus and Philetus did to say that the spiritual resurrection is a past event. Oh I see it is about time. Their nature was correct but "they were mistaken on the time element of it". Dawson not unlike Preston make the assumption that this was a timing issue, rather than a issue about spiritual things being placed in temporal boxes. How is it that they assume that spiritual things are temporal historical events. If something is temporal and historical, is it not anti-spiritual. If something is a past event, how is it also made to apply to you or I. The only answer I find is that Paul's accusations are targeted directly at modern day Preterists who in their commitment to truth who made a huge error in their position to maintain their 70ad position. In fact is has done exactly what Paul said it would do which has overthrow the faith of many. As Dawson states at the end of his article which he applies to futurists rings so true of Preterists also. . . "how could our teaching be any more mistaken than that of Hymenaeus and Philetus"
Sam Dawson
Question: How is your teaching any different from that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection is past already?
II Tim. 2.17-18: ...and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.
Answer: It's a good question, as many people assume that Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching about the resurrection of physical bodies out of holes in the ground.
But think about it: Do we know anyone today stupid enough to believe that the physical resurrection of physical bodies has occurred already? Do we know anyone stupid enough to teach such? How hard would it be for us to refute such an absurd contention. It would have been so simple for Paul to have refuted it. He could have taken those fellows to a tomb and shown them the bones of the dead! If they couldn't have understood such a demonstration, they wouldn't even have had to be baptized, would they? They could have gotten in on the "kiddie ticket." End of debate! Don't you think Paul would have thought of that? Why did not Paul suggest that? Is not the answer inescapable that Paul was not teaching and expecting that kind of resurrection?
It's evident that Hymenaeus and Philetus believed in the resurrection as the hope of Israel as the gospel which Paul preached, but they were mistaken on the time element of it. Daniel prophesied of the coming resurrection of Israel (Dan. 12.2-3--which Jesus quoted as about to be fulfilled in Mt.13.43.) "when the power of the holy people" would be "completely shattered" (Dan. 12.7) at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Dan. 9.26, 27--which Jesus quoted in Matthew 24 indicating it would "be fulfilled in his generation").
http://gospelthemes.com/eschatologyfaq.htm#hymenaus
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
