Some Arguments Against Full Preterism

[mikew]

I'm am kind of responding to the comments about the audio files on eschatology and the debate between preterists and full preterists.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=154

I would say that the border between the two views (preterism and full preterism) is very thin when viewed from popular knowledge. Though, I think people can start to sense a problem when full preterists propose that the there is no resurrection (what we see as a physical resurrection). But when it gets to a studied discussion to counter their proposal, I think there are deficiencies in the understanding of resurrection. (I mean a general deficiency among Christians in general.)

Now, on David Curtis' teaching that tries to connect all resurrection with Israel... I think that he has gone into extravagant speculation and I would think the defense against his perspective is a bit of common sense. Maybe also... you have to look at the context of the passages in Acts that he uses. Also, he seems to base his view on the idea that the Church is Israel -- this is something that is weakened by the context of Romans.

Then another aspect that helps keep people away from full preterism is the study of the true nature of the kingdom of God.

Without some of these studies it can be easy to fall into the mistake of full preterists.

[mikew]

Now some thoughts about people after they head into full preterism...

Even though the border between preterism and full preterism has seemed rather thin ... it seems more so among full preterists, in contrast to regular preterists, that the full preterists fill in the rest of eschatological doctrine with many abstract ideas such as types/antitypes being applied to NT prophecies, or abstract views of resurrection. And the version of full preterism by Curtis relies on a heavy emphasis on Israel as being the focus of resurrection --something that seems to stretch the meaning of the prophecies and of the text of Acts.

[Douglas]

Mike, brother.

I would be very interested in how you define "the true nature of the kingdom of God" as well as your understanding of the resurrection.

What D. Curtis says in regards to the resurrection in the below is backed up with scriptures and seems to be in context. I am not defending full preterism per say, only looking for truth.

http://www.ecclesia.org/TRUTH/dead.html

How do you define them?

[mikew]

The "arguments" I gave were more in the form of gripes or concerns rather than developed logical opposition. And my emphasis on the ideas about the nature of Israel, the types of resurrections and the study of the kingdom is that such topics would lead to better balance when studying the actual fulfillments of end-time prophecies.

I am expecting that people will study these topics, extracting from scripture a better sense about resurrection and the kingdom. NT Wright may be helping to increase interest in the resurrection -- though what is needed is a overview study of all ideas about resurrection in the scriptures.

You can read my analysis at:
http://www.biblereexamined.com/Resurrections.htm

Here's the list of resurrections that I basically identified...

1. The resurrection in bodily form of Christ
2. Resurrection of those who died, being raised to walk among men again
a) ruler's daughter, Matt 9:18-25 -- b) Lazarus John 11 -- c) Eutychus, the man falling out the window Acts 20:8-12
3. Resurrection, apparently as representing eternal life, acquired as one becomes a believer John 11:25-26
4. Partial resurrection of righteous, which then may be different from the regular resurrection, of Dan 12:2
5. Likeness of Christ's resurrection in Rom 6:4 -- this was presented as an argument by Paul to stop the Roman church from practicing hyper-grace, the idea to sin in order to increase grace
6. Regular resurrection of all believers, likely to earth, likely to a physical body of the sort of Christ Jesus John 11:24
7. Resurrection of evil men unto condemnation Dan 12:2, Rev 20:5

Now Curtis also introduced the idea of resurrection of Israel. This is something I hadn't studied or considered in the analysis.

I will try to address the definition and features of the kingdom of God separately in the near future.

And about the definition of Israel, I would suggest reviewing some material about Romans at the website mentioned above. I realize though that there is no specific article for the purpose of showing who Israel was. My studies have basically led to the conclusion that Israel was about the bloodline Israel narrowed down to those of the promise -- in other words, those who were of faith.

[RickC]

Hello Mike & Douglas.

Douglas -
I read David Curtis' articles a year or three ago and have had them bookmarked in a "Pro FP" folder. In looking over the page you linked to again today: Curtis made a long list of errors. Sometimes two or three in only one sentence.

From your link:

Was Christ Physically Resurrected?

1. Yes! Absolutely, without a doubt. Since Christ's resurrection was physical, won't ours be? No!

2.Christ's actual resurrection was His going to Hades and coming back out. When he was resurrected from Hades, He was raised into his original body, which was transformed into His heavenly form.

Curtis' Errors
1. The Jews, including Jesus and the Apostles, believed in a physical resurrection of the body. Curtis doesn't.

2a. Curtis invents his own ideas of what happened after the one event of Jesus' resurrection. He redefined the resurrection of Jesus by making up two stages of this one event:
2b. Error, Stage One: Jesus' original body was raised. Curtis would have been correct if he had stopped at that and left it at that. However, he didn't.
2c. Error, Stage Two: Curtis invents a post-resurrection "transformation" of Jesus' original physical body "into His heavenly form." This is gnostic doctrine. But Curtis has his own special twist on it.

2d. The gnostics believed that, when Christ lived during his ministry, his physical body wasn't real: it only "appeared in form" to be real since pure spirit cannot inhabit anything in the corrupted material world. Curtis does a switch on this gnostic theme in saying Jesus' original body was, at first, a real, regular human body like ours. Apparently, Curtis maintains that Jesus had a regular real body like ours till some time after Jesus came back to life.

2e. Curtis doesn't say when this alleged switch from Jesus' {real} original body "into His heavenly form" happened. He says Jesus was "raised into His original body" first; and this supposed switch happened after Jesus came back into it. Here Curtis develops his quasi-gnostic ideas further. We now have several separate "existences" of Jesus according to Curtis:
1) Jesus in his regular body when he lived.
2) "...His going to Hades and coming back out" into his original body.
Curtis separates Jesus' dead body from whatever "form of existence" Curtis thinks Jesus had when he was dead. He mentions Jesus going into Hades but doesn't say anything about Jesus' ontology {the nature of existence or being} while there.
3) After coming back to life from being in Hades "into His original body" --- which is the doctrine of resurrection, if left at that --- Curtis adds a NON-BIBLICAL post-resurrection event of the transformation of that same resurrected body of Jesus "into His heavenly form." This is quasi-gnostic doctrine at minimum, if not just plain gnostic....

Jesus wasn't "transformed" into anything or anyone else after he was raised.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scriptures teach the one-stage-event of the resurrection of dead body of Christ. His real human body was raised by, in, and through, the Holy Spirit. His real body was animated back to life from the dead by the Spirit of God. This happened at the one singular instant Jesus lived again.

The scriptures teach we will be raised just like Jesus was: our dead bodies will come back to life by, in, and through, the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus, we will have this same Spirit of God life-source in our resurrected life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, how many errors did Curtis make in the seven sentences I quoted, above?
Eight, nine, ten? At least seven. That's one per sentence.

To go into the rest of his many, many, mistakes would take a long time....
But I'll leave it at that.

Douglas, just because people like Curtis quote scriptures...I'm sure you know that doesn't necessarily mean much. Reading guys like Curtis might be interesting in terms of finding out others' opinions and so on. But, as I've demonstrated above, opinions can be so far off base that if one isn't really careful, one can be lead down a long trail of error on top of error. David Curtis is off base to begin with in his basic assumptions: He trails off from there....

Enough said.

Thanks,

[Douglas]

Thanks Rick and Mike,

Mike,
I liked reading your article on the resurrection you linked above. I have to admit I have trouble following your train of thought and at times I would disagree with certain things. Particularly your understanding of John 11:24, but thats ok, I guess we are all moving forward at our own pace of truth and understanding. Thanks for the link.

Rick,
I thank you also for your review of Curtis's article. Although I see his understanding of the resurrection and think he makes a very valid point, the errors (which are very possible I would say) are only valid if the assumptions at the beginning are not correct.

As long as I am focused on following Jesus, then I have no problems considering any eschatological view as being a possibility. Including full preterism, which I currently think may hold some correct views.

I have read views of the resurrection by some full pret's that seem to go to far to the gnostic side of things, although as long as one is in agreement with Scriptures, then it could just be a matter of semantics and a lack of understanding on my side.

When Jesus Christ was resurrected, He was not instantly recognized by his disciples, which seems strange if He was in the exact same body as prior to the cross. After His resurrection He appeared and dissapeared at times, through locked doors, again strange to me if it was just a re-animation of a normal physical body. Lastly, He "rises" up into heaven, which I thought that a purely physical body could not do based on my reading in the New Testament. I don't want to go to far and make a gnostic error, so I believe that our resurrection will be like Christs, and that we will be like the angles as the Bible says (which to me does not mean just a physical re-animation of our mortal bodies) There is more going on than we probably can understand right now, and therefore we have this void of knowledge that everyone keeps trying to explain that I believe cannot be fully understood until it happens. Upon our resurrection we will probably laugh at how little we truely understood in this regards.

Thanks again for your responses and I look forward to furthuring our discussions in brotherly love and understanding.

Doug

[Mellontes]

Hello Mike & Douglas.

Douglas -
I read David Curtis' articles a year or three ago and have had them bookmarked in a "Pro FP" folder. In looking over the page you linked to again today: Curtis made a long list of errors. Sometimes two or three in only one sentence.

From your link:

Was Christ Physically Resurrected?

1. Yes! Absolutely, without a doubt. Since Christ's resurrection was physical, won't ours be? No!

2.Christ's actual resurrection was His going to Hades and coming back out. When he was resurrected from Hades, He was raised into his original body, which was transformed into His heavenly form.

Curtis' Errors
1. The Jews, including Jesus and the Apostles, believed in a physical resurrection of the body. Curtis doesn't.

2a. Curtis invents his own ideas of what happened after the one event of Jesus' resurrection. He redefined the resurrection of Jesus by making up two stages of this one event:
2b. Error, Stage One: Jesus' original body was raised. Curtis would have been correct if he had stopped at that and left it at that. However, he didn't.
2c. Error, Stage Two: Curtis invents a post-resurrection "transformation" of Jesus' original physical body "into His heavenly form." This is gnostic doctrine. But Curtis has his own special twist on it.

2d. The gnostics believed that, when Christ lived during his ministry, his physical body wasn't real: it only "appeared in form" to be real since pure spirit cannot inhabit anything in the corrupted material world. Curtis does a switch on this gnostic theme in saying Jesus' original body was, at first, a real, regular human body like ours. Apparently, Curtis maintains that Jesus had a regular real body like ours till some time after Jesus came back to life.

2e. Curtis doesn't say when this alleged switch from Jesus' {real} original body "into His heavenly form" happened. He says Jesus was "raised into His original body" first; and this supposed switch happened after Jesus came back into it. Here Curtis develops his quasi-gnostic ideas further. We now have several separate "existences" of Jesus according to Curtis:
1) Jesus in his regular body when he lived.
2) "...His going to Hades and coming back out" into his original body.
Curtis separates Jesus' dead body from whatever "form of existence" Curtis thinks Jesus had when he was dead. He mentions Jesus going into Hades but doesn't say anything about Jesus' ontology {the nature of existence or being} while there.
3) After coming back to life from being in Hades "into His original body" --- which is the doctrine of resurrection, if left at that --- Curtis adds a NON-BIBLICAL post-resurrection event of the transformation of that same resurrected body of Jesus "into His heavenly form." This is quasi-gnostic doctrine at minimum, if not just plain gnostic....

Jesus wasn't "transformed" into anything or anyone else after he was raised.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The scriptures teach the one-stage-event of the resurrection of dead body of Christ. His real human body was raised by, in, and through, the Holy Spirit. His real body was animated back to life from the dead by the Spirit of God. This happened at the one singular instant Jesus lived again.

The scriptures teach we will be raised just like Jesus was: our dead bodies will come back to life by, in, and through, the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus, we will have this same Spirit of God life-source in our resurrected life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, how many errors did Curtis make in the seven sentences I quoted, above?
Eight, nine, ten? At least seven. That's one per sentence.

To go into the rest of his many, many, mistakes would take a long time....
But I'll leave it at that.

Douglas, just because people like Curtis quote scriptures...I'm sure you know that doesn't necessarily mean much. Reading guys like Curtis might be interesting in terms of finding out others' opinions and so on. But, as I've demonstrated above, opinions can be so far off base that if one isn't really careful, one can be lead down a long trail of error on top of error. David Curtis is off base to begin with in his basic assumptions: He trails off from there....

Enough said.

Thanks,

Where was Jesus' body when Jesus was in the depths of the earth for three days? Answer: it lay limp in the tomb! What or who was raised? It was Jesus, but His body still lay limp in the tomb. This is the order folks. If you want to call it gnostic, then go right ahead.

Redemption is the act of restoring ourselves back into the presence of God.

1. Sin is spiritual death - separation from God. It has nothing to do with physical death, and those who believe so are wrong.
2. Christ paid our penalty from sin - separation from God (My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me)
3. Christ was raised from the grave (sheol/hades - not the tomb). (Acts 2:27, Acts 2:31)

It was the resurrection of the SOUL, not the BODY.

Now after Christ was raised, His soul was put back into His original shell. The shell hadn't moved for three days. It lay there waiting for Christ's resurrection.
The only way Christ could demonstrate his conquering of death (spiritual death) was for Him to be put back into His body so that the disciples could "see" what had happened. If sin caused physical death, then at the very moment I was redeemed from my sin, that physical penalty should have been lifted too. But alas, the human race has a 100% death rate. Back to the dust we go...just as originally planned...

All futurists are still waiting for their redemption, but not me. I am saved. I am in Christ. He paid my penalty - every ounce of it. There is nothing I need do - even die to recieve His redemption. This is why the past second appearing is so vital. This is what the first century believers were waiting for. NOT US! Christ appeared the second time "UNTO SALVATION!" (Hebrews 9:28)

Look! See what the first century Christians were waiting for...

Ephesians 1:13-14 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Luke 21:28 – And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Romans 8:23 – And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Ephesians 4:30 – And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1 Thessalonians 5:8-9 – But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

1 Peter 1:5 – Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Revelation 12:10 – And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Futurists would have us believe that every generation since Calvary is to watch and to wait for Christ to come back. This they call imminence. What it really means is that God had no clue when Christ was going to appear the second time!!! This is blasphemy. The appointed time has come and gone folks! Do you really believe that God via inspiration of every single apostle told his first century believers to watch and wait for Him if He wasn't going to be coming for at least 2,000 years? This is GRAND DECEPTION. My SAviour has nothing to do with deceit or guile. The futurists believe otherwise just so they can support their own presuppostions. This is the real heresy folks, but because they are in the majority (big deal - so are the atheists), we, full preterists, who believe that God came to the generation He said He was coming to, are the ones called heretics. Don't figure...

When are you ever going to accept that near, nigh, soon, shortly, quickly, etc. mean EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEANT, especially in Revelation 1:1, 1:3, 22:6 and 22:10!! C'mon, WHEN?

Blessings, Mellontes

[Allyn]

I totally agree with you, Mellontes. I hope specific questions will be asked by those who disagree. It is important to pin these things down.

Friends, we sincerely ask of you, in fact we implore you to ask questions or show us we are wrong. Don't stew over it but instead point out our error from Scripture. What an opportunity we have here to settle these matters.

[mikew]

Mike,
I liked reading your article on the resurrection you linked above. I have to admit I have trouble following your train of thought and at times I would disagree with certain things. Particularly your understanding of John 11:24, but thats ok, I guess we are all moving forward at our own pace of truth and understanding. Thanks for the link.

Glad you read it. I know that I would have missed explaining ideas. This was actually just a train of ideas, some that were in my head and some that came to mind as I wrote. Then even more, there would be controversies and different interpretations that would conflict with what I have seen -- like in John 11.

Any comments or corrections are welcome. And I am willing (at least at the moment) to post comments on the article somewhere on the website --if anyone wants his comments noted -- or I can post a link back to this forum.

And I am curious now about your ideas on John 11... but that can be for another day.

(Douglas answering to Rick ...)
I thank you also for your review of Curtis's article. Although I see his understanding of the resurrection and think he makes a very valid point, the errors (which are very possible I would say) are only valid if the assumptions at the beginning are not correct.

There don't seem to be any valid points made by Curtis. Each step has flawed thinking or big assumptions -- this might be okay for a small Bible study by a novice -- but David Curtis is being influential on a large scale.
Because of the magnitude of this influence, I may go through and comment on the problems of the Philippian's article by Curtis. But that would be as a different posting or would be for my website. He starts off wrong by doing a big discussion on resurrection from Philippians when in reality there only is a simple mention of resurrection -- about Paul's desire to "attain" the resurrection.

It seems maybe that he just liked the Greek word translated as "resurrection" and wanted to expound upon that word and try to do that as if he were studying this word in the context of Philippians. His study even would be harmful in a preteristic view.

I have read views of the resurrection by some full pret's that seem to go to far to the gnostic side of things, although as long as one is in agreement with Scriptures, then it could just be a matter of semantics and a lack of understanding on my side.

Yes. One aspect of gnosticism, as I understand anything about it, is that you learn the secret meanings of phrases which means you have attained a certain spiritual level. I sense this atmosphere among some full preterists. And there is a tendency to make everything symbolic/typological -- except I don't if that fits in the realm of gnosticism.

[mikew]

Where was Jesus' body when Jesus was in the depths of the earth for three days? Answer: it lay limp in the tomb! What or who was raised? It was Jesus, but His body still lay limp in the tomb. This is the order folks. If you want to call it gnostic, then go right ahead.

That is an interesting point. Jesus' body was in the tomb three days and three nights. At the same time, scripture showed Jesus telling one of the other guys being crucified that he would be with Jesus that day in Paradise.

We are looking at two aspects here -- that of Jesus existing and being concious in Paradise immediately and then we are looking at the resurrection --where Jesus was among man in a body. It was the latter aspect that appears to be the focus of scripture.

1 Thessalonians 5:8-9 – But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ

You should read my article at http://www.biblereexamined.com/RomansWrath.htm where I discuss the wrath as a first century event. So this passage applied to the first century believers. The wrath of God seemed largely to be about God's response to the perversion of that generation -- not a general event and not something future to us in the 21st century. John the Baptist asked the Pharisees, "Who told you to flee from the wrath to come?"

Alas, if I am explaining the right understanding, then any application of 1Thes 5:8-9 toward us today would have to be explained as an extension of the original meaning.