THE PASSING OF THE LAW AND FULL-PRETERISM
(Select Link)
THE PASSING OF THE LAW AND FULL-PRETERISM [PDF]
~Introduction~
A common Full-Preterist interpretation of Matthew 5:17-18 holds that the Law was passed away in AD 70.
*
~Purpose~
This article is intends to show that the implications of this common Full-Preterist interpretation are aberrant to Christian dogmata and lacking in exegetical warrant.
*
~Focus~
The author will approach the subject dogmatically from an orthodox Preterist perspective. The Full-Preterist position will be contrasted from the Presbyterian standards.
*
~Method~
This article examines the arguments, implications, and errors of two prominent Full-Preterist papers. Exegetical work will be the basis of criticism.
PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Can God Do the Impossible?
PleaseConvinceMe Blog: Can God Do the Impossible?.
Excerpt:
“You’ve claimed him to be all powerful which means he should be able to do anything, even things that completely defy logic, that not a single one of you has said ‘of course god can do a logically impossible thing, he’s god!’ shows that there is still a step of faith even you’re not willing to take.”
Click on the link for a handy chart on the attibutes of God
“Practical Implications of the Incommunicable Attributes of God”
Young evangelicals high on social issues, but lean toward socialism
Excerpts:
Messmore says many young evangelicals interpret God’s call to help those in need as providing more government assistance and redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.
“What we’re trying to argue is that if you really care about poverty, if you really understand what poverty is, it’s not just material in nature,” he says. “It’s not just a lack of money or finances that the government can come along and meet. Given who we are as human beings, we have a wide range of needs — and a true approach to helping people in need takes into account all of those approaches.
and
Socialism ‘unbiblical’
Historian James Rose says socialism is an “unbiblical” idea of man and government that has become very popular with many Americans.
Rose, founder of the American Christian History Institute, says many Americans are welcoming European-type socialism as a model for the United States. Rose points to the biblical story of Israel when the nation cried out for a king to rule over them instead of God. When God responded to their request, he told them their king would “take” from them all that they had — an early example of socialism, Rose suggests. (Listen to audio report)
“Socialism is a false, deceitful view of man and government. It seeks to do things to people while it undermines individual responsibility and private capital,” he explains.
ETS Stirs up Views on “Justification by Faith”
Evangelical Theological Society Stirs up Views on “Justification by Faith”December 3, 2010
A delegation of professors and students from Biola University joined more than 2,400 people in Atlanta from Nov. 17-19 for one of the biggest theological events of the year: the 62nd annual Evangelical Theological Society conference.
The conference, led by Biola professor Clint Arnold, who also serves as president-elect of the Evangelical Theological Society, was an opportunity for theologians and students to focus on the doctrine of justification, which has been the source of growing debate in recent years. In his role as chairman, Arnold — a professor of New Testament at Biola’s Talbot School of Theology — moderated a highly anticipated discussion of the doctrine of justification between scholars Thomas R. Schreiner, Frank Thielman and N.T. Wright.
“Thirty years have now elapsed since ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ emerged and challenged the Lutheran and Reformed understandings of justification and a host of related doctrines,” Arnold wrote in the conference’s program. “Some have argued that the newer views have compromised the integrity of the gospel. Advocates of the New Perspective, however, claim that their views more accurately reflect the teaching of the Bible and, specifically, Paul’s teaching on justification.”
The event was an opportunity to understand various positions on the doctrine more fully, he said.
“To have an opportunity where we could sit down together and really hash out the differences — there was something very satisfying about that,” Arnold said. “It made me feel like we need more times like that when Christians disagree with each other — to really speak the truth in love and grapple with these things together.”
Read a full interview with Clint Arnold about his thoughts about moderating the debate. HERE
Read the rest of the article HERE
The Extrapolation of the Conflagration of Satan in Full-Preterism
Progressive Justification and Full (Hyper) Preterism
Revisting a “House Divided”
By Sharon Nichols, January 29, 2011
On page 46 of House Divided, David Green wrote:
“Augustine was the first of the post-apostolic fathers to give a serious treatment of the doctrine of justification. But Augustine’s view of justification was not the Reformed view. Beginning in about AD396, Augustine taught that justification was an all-encompassing and progressive change both in a man’s status and in his nature. For Augustine, justification encompassed the entire Christian life, from initial justification at the time of baptism to the perfection of justification in the end of the world. Augustine taught that justification was the gradual restoration of every aspect of man to God’s original created order.”
“Augustine, in essence, conflated “regeneration” and “sanctification” into a processive and nature-changing concept of “justification.” What we today would call “regeneration, progressive sanctification, and consummated sanctification,” Augustine simply called “justification.” 9
Footnote 9. The current controversy in Reformed churches over “the new perspective on Paul” represents a return to the Augustinian, medieval, Catholic view that justification is progressive. Reformed futurists are having difficulty decisively answering the “progressive justification” argument of the “new perspectives.” [This is absolutely not true and he shows his ignorance of the controversy and the responses by the anti-new perspective respondants. -sn] This is because (full) preterism is the only answer. If the Parousia did not take place when the temple fell in AD70, as Scripture teaches, then the “new perspective” is correct when it says that justification has not yet been consummated. [He surely does not know his theology at all, nor does he understand Reformed theology which is telling. – sn]. If the Parousia has not yet happened, then the eschatological process of justification is still ongoing: … The Reformed doctrine of non-progressive and full “justification by faith alone” at the point of conversion is true only if the eschatological process of “corporate justification” has already been consummated. It was consummated in AD70. In formulating “sola fide,” the Reformers were unknowingly conforming their soteriology to their preterist presuppositions. Full preterism and the Reformed doctrine of justification cannot long exist without each other. [He says this but does not prove it by demonstration, thus we are to take Dave Green at his word? It only demonstrates wishful thinking! – sn]
Page 47
“It is noteworthy that “justification” has been called the doctrinal center of the church’s system of theology. So essential to the gospel is the doctrine of justification that without it, there could be no church. 16 Yet Hill’s and Gentry’s (and our) Reformed view of justification was never taught or even conceived of anywhere in the post-apostolic church until the sixteenth century. “
Do you see what Green is doing? He affirms (by implication) that if the parousia did not take place in AD70 then justification would of necessity need to be progressive. He implies that the Reformed view on justification only works if one asserts the consummational fulfillment at AD70. If not, one must embrace the position of the Roman Catholic Church on progressive justification!
The Reformed believer rejects this ridiculous assertion. The Reformed doctrine on the work of our Lord’s redemption as fully consummated in Christ death, burial, and resurrection, which is the Gospel all within the context of AD30, not AD70. Green includes himself in the same Reformed group as Hill and Gentry, yet the elephant in the room is the timing of the parousia and tying it as a part of Redemption.
In order to have a truly comparative discussion with the full (hyper) preterist and the Reformed view of justification by faith alone, we must first have a proper understanding of what the Reformers taught about justification and sanctification in light of biblical text and Church Fathers as Dr. Talbot has already demonstrated from their own writings what they maintained concerning the doctrine of justification by faith. Green has “failed to launch” his demonstration by quoting the Fathers in support of his alleged assertions. Second, Green’s understanding of Reformed soteriology seriously lacks clarity and demonstrates an inability to engage in intellectual debate.
Green boldly asserts, “Full preterism and the Reformed doctrine of justification cannot long exist without each other.” In reality, Reformed theology cannot exist as historically defined if synthesized with Full Preterism. Dave you have already said that you were tweaking the doctrinal formula’s to make them work. In reality, you would have to completely reformulate the Reformed doctrine of salvation to make it work with your Full Preterism. But then, it would no longer the historic Reformed doctrine as taught by the Reformation. Your failure to understand demonstrates your inability to rationally understand the implication of your own statements!
Let Green’s words sink in: “If the Parousia has not yet happened, then the eschatological process of justification is still ongoing.” First, Green has introduced a new phrase “eschatological process of justification” and that should be defined since is it not a phrase that appears prior in his argument. Progressive justification is one thing, but eschatological process of justification means something else. Second, the Reformers did prove that you can have full consummation of the redemption of Christ without mandating it to be full consummated at the point of regeneration of the individual. This is where Green has to “tweak” (we call it pervert the historic doctrine). And just because Green makes such a fallacious statement does not mean it is correct. After all, who is Dave Green? Oh yes, Dorothy says that he will be proven to be one of the real scholars in the future over against those academically trained. Wishful thinking? I would say unrealistic dream!
So readers, do NOT let Green, or other supposedly Reformed full (hyper) preterist fool you into thinking they are truly Reformed in their views. They are neither Reformed nor scholarly. They are not orthodox, therefore they must be heterodox.
Note: I had some dialogue on this subject with Dave at SGP back in January 2010 (if I recall the dating correctly) but I can no longer find it. There is another related blog at PretBlog though, which you can find here:
Justification Shaded Green Posted 01.25.10
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4096
Justification in Augustinian Tradition: The Roots of the Reformation Doctrine on Justification
Justification in Augustinian Tradition
The Roots of the Reformation Doctrine on Justification
in Catholicism prior to Roman Scholasticism According to Philip Schaff
~ by ~
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Whitefield Theological Seminary
Lakeland, Florida
Phillip Schaff’s statement in Volume 7[1] like any statement must be understood in its context. In Section 4 “Periods of Church History” Schaff makes this statement concerning the nature of Roman Catholicism:
“In the middle age the development of the hierarchy occupies the foreground, so that it may be called the church of the Popes, as distinct from the ancient church of the Fathers, and the modern church of the Reformers.”
Carefully note the distinction being drawn by Schaff that the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages is “distinct from the ancient church of the Fathers, and the modern church of the Reformers.” Now Schaff in Volume 7, Chapter 1, and Section 2, elaborates further about this distinction and why it is important in understanding Roman Catholic dogma as responded to by the Refomers. Schaff writes: Read more…
Theology Explained 
The Second Coming & Covenant Millennialism: An Exegetical Response to Pop Full-Preterism
Second Coming & Covenant Millennialism [PDF]: An Exegetical Response to Pop Full-Preterism.