Beware of Joe the Preterist

Larry Siegle: The Apostles were Futurists until 70 AD?

Here we have a new dualistic eschatology model presented by Larry Siegle. Larry says the apostles were futurists before 70AD and preterists afterward. This kinda fits with the rest of the horizontal dualistic thinking that leads so many to Universalism, a consequence of placing ALL in the New. Larry's logic is that 70AD changes everything. The destruction of Jerusalem changes everything. Like saying this present age is for those living before 70 AD, and the age to come is for those living after 70 AD. Especially when one is "found worthy" to enter into that age. As if those outside of Christ are WORTHY, to live after 70AD. Or maybe how Preterist define the present heavens and earth as that pre-70AD period, and the new heavens and earth as a post 70AD period. Forgeting that 2 Pet. 3:13 does not say" where unrighteousness dwells". And yet by making a horizontal line, Preterists are forced to conclude unrighteous is included in the Hew Heavens and Earth.

The truth is the bible presents consistantly a verticle dualistic model that is outside the scope of past/future. This model has more to do with inclusion/seperation from Christ rather than which historical period of time you live in. It is about moving from one realm from below to a higher realm above. Not becuase it was your birthday and afterwards you got a new car. Righteousness is NOT Preterism, and inheriting God's promises is not something ALL recieve in a historical year.


Larry Siegle "The apostles were FUTURISTS, but only until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70."

preterist.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/150k-on-clothes-you-betcha/

Full Preterist Admits Full Preterism is Universalism

Tami Jelinek "Covenant Creation is the only understanding/framework that is capable of offering a consistent preterist view of the Scriptures which ***refutes*** universalism. Mike's and RCM's view of a universal/global new heavens and new earth leads straight there, however. So Todd was right 3 years ago or so when he started pointing this out. As long as you people (Mike B and pals) insist on equating the new heavens and new earth with the new covenant age, and as long as you insist on globalizing it and making it geographical in nature, your brand of preterism *will* logically conclude with universalism."

Source: Email

Don Preston and Post 70AD Universalistic Earth

Don Preston "So, in prophecy, the coming of the Day, the Day of Salvation, was eschatological to the core. It involved the restoration of the “earth”, the resurrection of Israel, the kingdom, the New Covenant, and virtually every tenet of salvation that one can possibly imagine. It was deliverance from the darkness of sin, despair, alienation, and death. This means that when Paul said, “Now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed”, he was not saying that they were nearer to their personal death, or, that the passing of the few years from their conversion had brought them that much nearer to their salvation in some vague, elastic, ambiguous way. Paul was saying that the Day of Salvation, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises of the Day, stood on the very brink of fulfillment."

eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=622&Itemid=61

You Might be a Hyper-Preterist if...

1. When you hurt your back playing golf and your buddies look at you and say, "you got a bum glorified body, didn't you?," you might be a hyper-preterist.

2. If after lusting after a Playboy Playmate you go and teach that we were definitively sanctified in 70 AD, you might be a hyper-preterist.

3. If you say you take the time texts seriously but you don't hold that 1 John was written at 11:00 p.m. on 69 AD since it says, "we know it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18), you might be a hyper-preterist.

4. If you say that people weren't regenerate until 70 AD but it was already not yet, and then you read passages which speak of the saints loving God and his law (which the unregenerate cannot do), you might be a hyper-preterist.

5. If you think 70 AD was the most important event in history, rather than the cross, you might be a hyper-preterist.

6. If you have Gnostic tendencies, you might be a hyper-preterist.

7. If you've never read Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Murray, Van Til, Vos, et al, you might be a hyper-preterist.

8. If you've read them, and the every other Christian position on the resurrection and the second advent, and you say they're all wrong and you're all correct, you might be a hyper-preterist.

9. If you think you're reformed and hold that God has elected a certain number of people to everlasting life, but yet you think the earth will last forever with people entering into the city, for eternity, you might be a hyper-preterist.

10. If you have a blank look on your face, with glassy eyes, you might be a hyper-preterist.

11. If your family members need to hire people to "get you out," you might be a hyper-preterist.

12. If your position leads to the position that Jesus needed regeneration since he was resurrected, you might be a hyper-preterist.

13. If you get kicked out of every church you go to, you might be a hyper-preterist.

14. If your creed is that you have no creed, you might be a hyper-preterist.15. If you say that "the end of ALL things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7) means ALL things, but the fulfillment of EVERY vision without delay (Ez. 12:21-28) does not mean EVERY vision, you might be a hyper-preterist.

16. If your teaching is gangrenous, you might be a hyper-preterist.

17. If you still take the lord's supper even though one reason it was to be taken was in order to "proclaim His death until He comes," you might be a hyper-preterist.

18. If you constantly bombard people with e-mails, you might be a hyper-preterist.

19. If your previous theological bents have been other heretical positions (i.e., the Church of Christ's), you might be a hyper-preterist.

20. If you make yourself feel better by saying, at one time people thought the reformers were heretics, you might be a hyper-preterist.

21. If your two favorite sayings are: (1)Reformed and always reforming and (2) sola scriptura, even though you misrepresent what those mean, you might be a hyper-preterist.

22. If you live in Florida, you might be a hyper-preterist.

23. If you're a fan of "New Covenant Theology," you might be a hyper-preterist.

24. If you think Jesus will kick it with Enoch and Elijah for eternity while the rest of us will float around as disembodied spirits after we phsyically die, you might be a hyper-preterist.

25. If you think that we'll still sin after we die since definitive sanctification has already occurred, you might be a hyper-preterist.

26. If you think that God will live in eternity with active sinners, forever, you might be a hyper-preterist.

27. If you have no education, you might be a hyper-preterist.

28. If you only focus on eschatology, you might be a hyper-preterist.

29. If you can't get off the milk and chew some meat, you might be a hyper-preterist.

30. If you deny Christ's full work of redemption (e.g., the phsyical He made good also needs redemption), you might be a hyper-preterist.

31. If you think that Don Preston "is the man" because he rambles off basic two-premiss syllogisms, you might be a hyper-preterist.

32. If this is the new heavens and earth and you have your glorified body, and upon realizing this if you're not depressed and feeling cheated, you might be a hyper-preterist.

33. If you've had to define what a Christian is and this definition lets just about any wacko into the camp, you might be a hyper-preterist. __________________

Copied from Paul Manata (Many Thanks!!!!)

http://holygodblog22.blogspot.com/2007/12/you-might-be-hyper-preterist-if.html

Bizarre Statements that are just WRONG

Jean-Pierre "If AD70 has no meaning for you, you are still in your sins and under the law."

In a recent post to my NEW YouTube channel Jean-Pierre makes a very bizarre statement that I wanted to share. It is SHOCKING INDEED. Jean seems to glorify AD 70 to a point that he seems to distort a very familiar passage. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."

Jean has rewritten this passage to read. (1 Corinthians 15:17) If 70AD is not true, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

Are Hyper-Preteterists Really Bereans?

Hyper-Preterism Resurrection Past

Sub-Prime Preterism

William Bell: 70AD when the LAW would pass, when SIN and HADES (DEATH) would be destroyed

Bell by his statement reveals the key problem which is spiritual death. He defines spiritual death by showing that the death Adam suffered when he ate from the tree of good and evil was not physical in nature. I agree that this death is not physical in nature, but is referring to that which is spiritual. However, Bell then maintains that in 70 AD, God removed the law, and destroyed sin and death. On this issue, I disagree with Bell and believe he makes a huge assumption that comes with much baggage. The victory over SIN and DEATH is not removed in 70ad. When the Romans took Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, this was not some mystical moment in time, were Victory was somehow gained over SIN AND DEATH. I believe SIN and DEATH are still present, and are still very much a part of the "present age" which Jesus refers to. I believe SIN and DEATH are still very much apart of those who live after the flesh who are part of the "present heavens and earth". If this is true, and SIN AND DEATH are still present after 70AD then NOTHING passed in 70AD as Bell maintains. I might agree with Bell, if he were to say "this was the sign of" or "the revealing of" or "the manifested this truth" but he does not use that kind of language to describe what passed in 70AD. He is in fact describing a spiritual event which is the resurrection of passing from death to life, separate and apart from being in Christ, and does so in a way in which death is completely removed after the historical period of time of 70ad. If this is really what Bell means, and death has been completely removed, how is this NOT Universalism. Is their another SIN, another LAW, another DEATH which stands to condemn the ungodly.

Additional note: How can you say that there is sin if the last enemy has been destroyed? In other words, Full Pret is not just universalistic through the removal of sin. Oh, but wait. . . it wasn't SIN that was destroyed . . it was "THE" sin! AS IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "THE SIN" AND "SIN" and "THE DEATH" and "DEATH".

William Bell Book:The Re-Examination (A Review of William Jones "An Examination of the A.D. 70 teaching
page 73-74 "The sting of [the death] is [the] sin, and the strength of [the] sin is the law." What is the strength of sin? It is "THE LAW." What Law? The Law of Moses. "Moreover the law entered that the offense might about..." (Rom. 5.20). Paul is talking about "the sin" committed by Adam, which brought about "the death" of Adam, which was not physical death. Adam did not die physically the day he ate; however, just as his eyes were opened the day he ate, he died. Adam was not physically blind before he ate of the tree. The statement concerning his "eyes being opened" refers to his awakened conscious resulting from sin (Gen. 3:7) In like manner, his death was not a physical death, but spiritual death or condemnation (Rom. 5:18) which resulted in his being expelled from the Garden and hence cut off from the tree of life. That is "the death" caused by "the sin" of rebellion against God-man seeking to be his own god, guided by his own will and strength. To be cut off, separated from God and the tree of life is "the death." This is why the victory over sin is stated in the present tense in 1 Cor. 15:57. "But thanks be to God, who gives, [literally, is giving] us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. God was at that time in the process of fulfilling the law and setting it aside. The law would no longer have the power to condemn because of the gospel. The time of consummation was near- at hand. Soon, the Lord would come and fulfill all things spoken by the prophets. That is when the law would pass, when sin and Hades (death) would be destroyed. It all came to pass in AD70, when Jesus said, these are the days of vengeance in which all things which are written may be fulfilled (Lk. 21:22,32).

See A Related article Here from Jack Scott

Roderick Edwards: Hyperpreterists are NOT “brothers & sisters in Christ”.

Roderick Edwards "I do NOT consider hardened hyperpreterists to be “brothers & sisters in Christ”. They are worse than heathen in that they continue to use the name “Christian” while as even James Metzger observed, as nothing like ANYTHING in the history of Christianity. Interacting with hyperpreterism on Scripture is like Muslim terrorist desiring house-to-house combat when there are much more effective ways to deal with them. Hyperpreterists MUST come to grips with the fact that what they present is NOTHING like Christianity & is as Metzger pointed out, actually a “different religion”."

preteristblog.com/?p=841

Don Preston's View of Revelation "Gone awry from even the introduction"

Lloyd Olsen "(Don Preston's view of Revelation) Gone awry from even the introduction.

The importance of the right interpretive framework surfaces even before Mr. Preston can present his first so-called argument. His introduction has two illustrative shortfalls. First, he writes:

. . . Revelation speaks of events that "must shortly come

. . . to pass." (Revelation 1:1-3).

It is crucial – even vital – for us to see that Mr. Preston has VIOLATED his own quest for a proper understanding of the proposition. Countless works have identified Rev 1:19 as the key to understand the Book's three historical contexts:

. . . (1) the things which thou hast seen (past),

. . . (2) the things which are (present), and

. . . (3) the things which shall be (future).

Because Mr. Preston has FAILED to see the importance of this THREE PART KEY, HE WRONGLY FORCES EVERYTHING TO FIT HIS MISGUIDED FOCUS ON THINGS THAT "must shortly come to PASS" (eggus) and other similar phrases such as "quickly," "near," or "at hand." Behind these words are the important Greek words "tavcos," "eggus," or "mevllw." However, Mr. Preston errs in thinking that these are technical words with precise meanings.

eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=628&Itemid=61

William Price: The REAL PRICE of Preterism

Former Hyper-Preterist William Price says
"I believe preterism in all forms is a doctrine of demons, a hopeless heresy, and that no one who believes it is truly a part of the Kingdom

"Preterism usurps the biblical hope of believers in the future return of the Lord Jesus the Messiah. It denies the rapture and resurrection as literal events, and believes Christ’s return was spiritual, contrasting it to what the angels said in Acts 1. Preterism believes that all of Matthew 23-25 is fulfilled, and this is a lie because stones still stand in Jerusalem to this day. I know this heresy personally, because I use to be in it, and I tell you, as strong as a case they may make, they in fact are presenting spiritual gnosticism in presenting the preterist heresy."

"The covenant of preterism is not the covenant with Christ. It is a hopeless covenant made with hell and the grave. It has no place in Christian assemblies being proclaimed. I have friends who are preterists, and I love them, but hate their doctrine as deceptive and damning.

"This is the official stand I make on this issue, that preterism is a heresy, an abomination, and if any man comes preaching such a doctrine, he should be removed from the church."

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [is disloyal to what Jesus Christ taught], do not receive him [do not accept him, do not welcome or admit him] into [your] house or bid him Godspeed or give him any encouragement. For he who wishes him success [who encourages him, wishing him Godspeed] is a partaker in his evil doings. (2 John 1:10-11 AMP)"

http://acts238newcovenant.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/death-against-preterism/

Brian Schwertley: Full Preterism IS A Damnable Heresy

Brian Schwertley "Full Preterism denies the biblical meaning of the fall. They believe physical death is natural. Full Preterism denies the death and resurrection of scripture as defined by the New Testament and the Old Testament. It is not simply a sign. . It is a sign, but much much more than that. We are saved by blood of Christ, we are saved by the suffering and sacrificial death of Christ. We can not be saved without it. And the resurrection of Christ is also absolutely critical to Christian Theology. A literal bodily resurrection is the reason we rise spiritually, regeneration is the reason we are sanctified and it is the reason we will rise with glorified bodies just like Christ. A literal bodily resurrection. Full Preterism is a heresy. A damnable heresy that originated in the 19th century. It was not taught by any of the church fathers. It was not taught by any of the creeds and confessions and the first seven ecumenical councils. it was not taught by any protestant churches whether Arminian, or Baptist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran. It is a relatively new heresy. It is a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a damnable heresy. It is a gross perversion of scripture. It is completely contrary to the Word of God. And we should not extend the right hand of fellowship to any full preterist. They should be excommunicated from our churches. And we should not have dinner with them, we should not extend the right hand of fellowship to them, because they are damnable heretics. The word of God teaches explicitly that because Christ rose from the dead we shall rise from the dead like him. To ignore that is to denigrate the cross and the empty tomb of Jesus Christ."

blubrry.com/player/?p=2840&e=278071&details=1