Welcome to Planet Preterist
Search Site:     
Submit an article | Submit a link
3261 articles; 634 encyclopedia terms
 Submit  Links  Exclusives  Forum  Downloads  RSS Feeds New Account
Planet Preterist Blogs
Tools & Links
Login
Nickname

Password

Please create a free account to post in the forums, submit articles, links...etc.
Funny Stuff
It is my well-researched opinion that the Mark of the Beast, as related in scripture, is absolutely literal. Soon, all people on earth will be coerced into accepting a Mark in their right hand or forehead. I am convinced that it will be an injectable passive RFID transponder with a computer chip — a literal injection with a literal electronic biochip 'mark'. . .I believe that such an implanted identification mark literally will become Satn's Mark of the Beast, as we will discuss further in this chapter."
-- Terry Cook
Our Columnists
Catalog Items
Preterism: The Assumptions That Kill
Posted on Saturday, June 04 @ 10:19:30 PDT by Virgil

Critical Articles by Samuel Frost
Dee Dee Warren (an alias name) has been stirring the pot recently with a quote by Dave Green, a preterist. Dee is a radical anti-preterist who is emboldened with a modern day Joan of Arc spirit to wipe out preterism wherever she sees it. Whether she is merely preaching to her choir or making any negative inroads into preterism cannot be known. What is known is that anti-preterist books continue to come out because of the growth rate of preterism.

One person that attends our fellowship found us by merely searching the web for “preterism.” It seems that the more people put out there against us, the more it peaks the curiosity of some to search out who we are; and some of these folks become convinced. What’s the old saying? Any press is good press. My name has been put into the spotlight by Jay E. Adams, Charles Hill, Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice. Not bad for a Hoosier boy.

Click here to read the rest of Sam's post


 
Related Links
· LaHaye Ministries
· Outline to Preterism
· More about Critical Articles
· News by Virgil


Most read story about Critical Articles:
Login

Article Rating
Average Score: 0
Votes: 0

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options
   ^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF View PDF -   Subscribe -   Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 96 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:
Password:
[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]
Re: The Assumptions That Kill (Score: 1)
by cinper on Saturday, June 04 @ 11:09:26 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I feel that Preterism is the new Galileo problem. The Church reacted vehemently and forcefully against the radical idea that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of our universe. It took 500 years for an apology for Galileo's excommunication.

Christians are fearful of ideas they were not brought up believing. Reaction against Preterism is nothing but fear, because it implies all the teachers who taught us Dispensationalism were wrong. Well and good - no one person or group of people are perfect and we should not expect that.

It is not too much to ask the Church to press on, admitting we may have not gotten it right but we are continually searching the scriptures, as Bereans, testing all things. If, as in Preterism, a better way is shown, there is nothing to fear.

Bottom line, a lot is at stake commercially for American Evangelical Protestants to admit the failure of Dispensationalism.

Perry


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Assumptions That Kill (Score: 1)
by 57chevypreterist on Saturday, June 04 @ 12:35:11 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Sam:

Outstanding article!

I am going to say "good luck" in trying to get Dee Dee to have a discussion with you on this topic...it is my opinion that her problem is she is so convinced in her mind that full preterism is equal to "hymenaism" (or however it's spelled!) that she will not even consider a discussion about it. (Some people still think the world is flat, too! )

I asked this very thing of her on her blog:

"Can we both agree with Paul that Hymenaeus and Philetus were heretical and in error about the resurrection having already occurred as of Paul's writing of the epistle to Timothy? All full preterists believe this to be correct. In other words, both partial and full preterists believe that the timing of the resurrection is at a point in history following Paul's authorship of 2 Timothy."

Her response was,"Bryan : I am not going to get into a blog debate with you."

So you have to consider the person you are dealing with: she is perfectly content to "hurl stones" and bear false witness against us and condemn us as damnable heretics, but not engage us. Some people are just unwilling to be reasoned with.

I think it is sad that she will not deal gently with us as Paul says in Gal. 6:1, Phil 4:5, and other places, but, as you say, would instead have helped pick up the sticks for the fires that burned many a heretic.

What a demonstration of Christian love (NOT!)

Check the fruit: Matthew Chapter 7.

Bryan

PS Based on previous interactions with her, her response to this would probably be along the lines of "quit playing the martyr", rather than deal intellectually with this premise.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Assumptions That Kill (Score: 1)
by Virgil on Saturday, June 04 @ 13:41:54 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Sam - Dee Dee Warren is not a "scholar" that deserves your attention man.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Assumptions That Kill (Score: 1)
by vinster on Sunday, June 05 @ 04:07:22 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Sam, You said:

"Interestingly enough, a curious problem arises. Dee has stated that she does not debate “heretics” (more question begging). If this is truly the case, then no argument has been won. Paul debated judaizers all the time, no problem. He debated Peter to his face. Jesus debated Sadducees and Pharisees. If preterism is a heresy that is growing in the church, then it behooves those who sit on the towers to watch after the flock and warn against men such as Dave Green and myself, who are like gangrene and overthrow the faith of some."

I think this is the crux of the problem.
Dee Dee can represent her dying view on some web-site and get a following to agree. But when push comes to shove, she does not have the capacity to represent Jesus and Paul in a Biblical manner of PUBLIC debate or dialogue. This would take her down a few notches from the throne she has in her own little corner of the world wide net.
Vinster


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The Assumptions That Kill (Score: 1)
by Virgil on Sunday, June 05 @ 06:09:26 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
Sam...she says you missed her point! This is off her website:

HyperPreterist Samuel Frost has written a "response" (at least he seems to think so) to my argument for the condemnation of the Neo-Hymenćan gangrene. All Samuel seemed to prove, however, are two things. One, he has a shockingly poor comprehension of exactly what my point is. Two, he is able to completely miss the point using more words than Don Preston. Allllright. Seeing how he is arguing something I already addressed five years ago, this is not my top priority.

This woman has been operating like this for years. She has a big mouth..probably to compensate for her other shortcomings, and whenever confronted, "she doesn't have time to respond." Right!



[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

The State of Christian Eschatology (Score: 1)
by Parker on Sunday, June 05 @ 06:50:25 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
As I see it, the real problem is rooted in what really happened for the first-century elect back then. The elect ones (i.e., the apostles' own disciples and churches) had no idea "all prophecy was fulfilled and that their blessed hope took place"-- yet scripture claimed that they would know.

So, any way you look at it, there is no airtight solution to this debate, and the options are as follows:

(1) All took place (FP), but the elect ones didn't know it--therefore, scripture erred in saying the elect would know.

(2) All did not take place (PP), but scripture doesn't clearly explain that some events would take place while others seemingly linked wouldn't--therefore, scripture is unclear or in error. Christians must look to some interpretive tradition preserved within the historic Church to sort it out.


As we see, neither option is without serious complications/implications. Nevertheless, such is the true state of Christian eschatology.

Augustine, Eusebius, Aquinas and others attempted to solve the above problem by saying that scripture often has multiple fulfillments, and they considered that eschatology followed this same pattern. Such an explanation saves face, but it leaves everyone guessing about a future end while dogmatically asserting it. It's not ideal, but I can live with it. All other options gravely discredit Christianity's prophetic tradition/underpinnings. A final parousia that was unknown to the elect to whom it pertained is a total disaster. A partial fulfillment that leaves everyone guessing is also a disaster, though perhaps less of one.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]


Web site powered by Planetpreterist.com Apache Web ServerPHP Scripting Language

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all original content © 2008 by Planetpreterist.com
You can syndicate our articles using our RSS Feeds