Preterism and the Question of Heresy

[Pastor Dave]

A very good article!

http://www.quodlibet.net/otto-heresy.shtml

--

Pastor Dave

The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.

"Fantasy abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters."
- Francis Goya

[Ike E 12/22/2009]

"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuf9j5ph51pphifn4...@4ax.com...
>
>
> A very good article!

...said one fool to another.

[snippeth]

Ike

[SwordoZ]

"Ike E 12/22/2009" <xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh52f7$br0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

Sniping becomes the norm when ignored. :)

[Pastor Dave]

Preterism and the Question of Heresy,
Reverend Randall Otto, PhD

In a recent article in Quodlibet Online Journal, I concurred with
R. C. Sproul's thesis that Jesus was a preterist. Sproul suggests
in his book The Last Days According to Jesus (1998) that, while
Jesus believed the parousia of which he spoke in the Olivet
Discourse was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the
Jewish war of 66-70 A.D., there remains another parousia yet
future which is described by Paul. However, the question for
partial preterists like Sproul remains: "if the eschatological
scenario and parousia Jesus predicted in the Olivet discourse was
fulfilled in AD 70, where did the apostles get the notion of
another, yet future, coming? Are we back to the old liberal
portrayal of Paul as the real founder of Christianity, and the
perennial pitting of Jesus over against Paul (and the rest of the
apostles)?" [1] I concluded that article by contending, "If 'the
last days according to Jesus' were fulfilled in the judgment on
Jerusalem in AD 70, then the Church must be reformed and always
reforming according to the Word of its Lord so that its
eschatology fits Jesus' teaching." [2]

Full preterism views the parousia singly spoken of in the NT as
fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in
the Jewish war of 66-70 A.D. This eschatological viewpoint has
been rapidly spreading throughout Reformed Christianity. A
contributor to the Reformed Reconstructionist Chalcedon Report
(September, 1997) said, "It is my understanding that this heresy
is spreading like weeks [sic, weeds] in Reformed churches." [3]
This quote not only describes the rapid spread of preterism; it
also denounces preterism as heresy. The charge of heresy has
become more prominent as preterism has gained adherents. At least
one conservative Reformed denomination has even officially
condemned preterism as heresy. On March 13, 1997, the Western
Classis of the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS)
approved an "Action to Condemn Hyper-Preterism as Heresy," an
overture which the Synod of the RCUS adopted at its annual
meeting in May, 1997. In addition, a May 1, 1999 "Committee Paper
Investigating Full Preterism" by the Heartland Presbytery of the
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) describes its "key heretical
teachings." A website, "The Things Which Are To Come: Defending
Our Hope For The Future" (http://members.truepath.com/tocome/)
has been established expressly to counter the preterist
"challenge to biblical orthodoxy" and contains articles (included
with additional critiques in "The Preterist Archive") that speak
of preterism with reference to Hymenaeus who, with Philetus, is
said to "have wandered away from the truth" by contending that
"the resurrection has already taken place" (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

Heresy is a serious charge, for if it be true, preterists are
outside of Christ and in peril of eternal condemnation. Is heresy
a justifiable charge against preterists? This article will
examine the nature of heresy and the validity of the primary
charges issued against preterism, particularly as enumerated in
the ecclesiastical documents cited above. While there is
precedent in church history for charging preterists with heresy
on the basis of their view of the resurrection body, the charge
would also hold against many other Christian theologians who are
not preterists and widely considered orthodox. Preterism is not a
monolithic movement, so that variations advocated by some
preterists may perhaps fall outside the acceptable norms for
faith. However, the preterist movement in general cannot be
justifiably categorized as heretical, but instead as
fundamentally orthodox. [4] Moreover, if Jesus was a preterist,
then a church that is truly reformed and always reforming
according to the Word of God must reform its understanding of
eschatology to agree with the teachings of its Lord and admit the
validity of preterism.

The Question of Heresy

Heresy is a rather difficult concept to define. The Greek word
hairesis derives from harein, which means in the active voice "to
take, win, seize," and in the middle voice "to select, choose."
In classical literature, it is used to indicate the taking of a
town in battle or the choice of a magistrate, for example. From
this there develops in Hellenism the predominant objective use of
the term to denote "doctrine" and especially a "school" of
thought. Certain schools of thought are associated with a
particular, or even a peculiar, doctrine which sets them
distinctively apart from others. The use of the word to denote a
school, or sect, is the one generally found in the NT, where the
word is used of the "sect of the Sadducees (Acts 5:17) and the
"sect of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5), "the strictest sect" of the
Jewish religion (Acts 26:5). The early church was referred to by
this word, as "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), as "the
Way, which they call a sect" (Acts 24:14), and "this sect"
everywhere spoken against (Acts 28:22). In fact, according to the
standard Greek lexicon, the uses of the word for the Christian
church "incline toward" the subsequent development of the word
denoting a sect holding unacceptable views, i.e., a "heretical
sect." [5] As a school of thought with particular doctrines not
acceptable to the larger Jewish body, the church was initially
viewed as a heresy. Clearly, the characterization of heresy
hinges on who or what is considered authoritative. For the early
church, the Lord Jesus and his designated apostles were
authoritative, with the result that a charge of heresy by Jewish
leaders meant little.

According to H. Schlier, the invocation of hairesis by the church
"does not owe its meaning to the development of an orthodoxy. The
basis of the Christian concept of hairesis is to be found in the
new situation created by the introduction of the Christian
ekklesia." [6] This is because hairesis "cannot accept" ekklesia
and ekklesia "excludes" hairesis. While factions may be a
demonstration of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), factions
also have positive value; "there have to be factions among you,
for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine" (1
Cor. 11:19). Historically, it is clear that the church has come
to a greater refinement of its own doctrine through wrestling
with divergent opinions. It is only when "false teachers . . .
secretly bring in destructive opinions," whereby "they even deny
the Master who bought them" and bring "swift destruction on
themselves" (2 Pet. 2:1), that the heresy threatens the
foundation of the church and must be excised. "After a first and
second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes
divisions (hairetikon anthropon, Tit. 3:10).

While Schlier may be technically and chronologically correct in
contending that heresy was defined ecclesiologically rather than
doxologically, there having been as yet no conciliar
determinations of what constituted correct doctrine, it is
nonetheless clear that there existed early in the church basic
formulations of doctrine which served as standard confessions of
faith, such as the hymns and baptismal formulas found in the NT
(e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3-7; Phil. 2:6-11; 1 Tim. 3:16). [7] For the
present discussion it should be noted that none of these
confessions contains any statement of the resurrection of the
flesh or a physical second advent of Christ. These traditional
doctrines are instead based on subsequent biblical interpretation
and, with all human endeavors, are "subject to limitation by
man's finiteness and sinfulness." [8] Assertions by critics of
preterism of "what is universally defined in the New Testament as
a resurrection of the flesh" and that, "in eternity, to have
affirmed the physical second Advent will be essential," [9]
presume divine infallibility for their potentially fallible
interpretations. There is no unequivocal biblical assertion for
either statement and both are variously attested in subsequent
statements of faith. In the ante-Nicene church fathers reference
is made to a "rule of faith" (regulae fidei). Ignatius of Antioch
(Epistle to the Trallians, ch 9 [ANF 1:70]) sets forth circa 107
the essence of the faith:

Be deaf, therefore, when any would speak to you apart from
(at variance with) Jesus Christ [the Son of God], who was
descended from the family of David, born of Mary, who was truly
born [both of God and of the Virgin . . . truly took a body; for
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us without sin . . .], ate
and drank [truly], truly suffered persecution under Pontius
Pilate, was truly [and not in appearance] crucified and died . .
. who was also truly raised from the dead [and rose after three
days], his Father raising him up . . . [and after having spent
forty days with the Apostles, was received up to the Father, and
sits on his right hand, waiting till his enemies are put under
his feet]. [10]

Writing about 180, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, enlarges upon
Ignatius' rule with statements which presage the Apostles' Creed
(Against Heresies bk 1, ch 10, sec 1 [ANF 1:330-332]). Notable
for the present discussion are his statements on "the
resurrection of the dead, and the bodily assumption [ensarkon)
into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his
appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father, to comprehend
all things under one head, and to raise up all flesh of all
mankind." [11] While there is no temporal element attached to the
appearing, there is a stronger emphasis on the resurrection of
the flesh. In the Latin recension (Against Heresies bk 3, ch 4,
secs 1-2), Irenaeus' use of venturus, the future active
participle of the Latin venir, "to come," linguistically denotes
nothing more than the time after the principal verb, so that
"shall come in glory," while surely understood by Irenaeus to
mean a future coming, does not require the speaker as the point
of time reference, but simply denotes an occurrence following
Christ's suffering and rising again. The same may be said of
subsequent uses of venturus by Tertullian and subsequent Latin
writers.

At the beginning of the third century Tertullian introduced the
phrase "resurrection of the flesh" (De Virginibus Velandis, ch
1), [12] though this does not appear in all his statements (not
in Against Praxeus, e.g.). The statement of Lucian of Antioch
around 300, says nothing concerning the resurrection of the dead
(or flesh), but simply speaks of the representative nature of
Christ's resurrection ("he rose for us") and accents his coming
again (palin) in judgment. With the received form of the
Apostles' Creed, "the resurrection of the flesh" (carnis
resurrectionem) becomes more normative, in accord with its
earlier as well as subsequent versions as a Roman baptismal
symbol (c. 341). Notwithstanding, Schaff translates carnis with
"body," leaving "flesh" in brackets, with a note that, while
"older English translations of the Creed had the literal
rendering flesh (caro, sarx), by which the ancient Church
protested against spiritualistic conceptions of the Gnostics,"
this may be misunderstood in a grossly materialistic sense, while
the resurrection of the body is unobjectionable; comp. 1 Cor. xv.
50." [13] "Resurrection of the body" remains the standard English
translation of this statement in the Apostles' Creed.

The original Nicene symbol of 325 speaks more simply yet of
Christ "raised the third day" and "coming to judge the living and
dead," with no reference whatsoever to individual resurrection.
The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, which is what is
regularly referred to as the Nicene Creed, speaks in the same
simplicity, with the addition of the expected "resurrection of
the dead" (resurrectionem mortuorum). Sandlin's confident
assertion that "all orthodox Christians in all sectors of the
church echo Tertullian" in insisting on the "restoration of the
flesh" cannot be sustained. [14] Contrary to his virulent
assertions, a materialistic resurrection and a physical second
advent are not even mentioned, let alone "a prime tenet [of]
Nicene orthodoxy." [15]

In the early church fathers, then, hairesis became a technical
term for a view hostile to the church. Initially, it is viewed as
any adherence to a philosophy that does not accord with the
established teachings of the church as maintained by the bishop
(Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, ch 6 [ANF 1:52]). It
involves mixing Jesus Christ with "their own poisonous
teachings," such as the denial of his virgin birth, his passion
on the cross, his resurrection, his divinity, or his distinction
from the Father and Spirit in the one God (Ignatius, Epistle to
the Trallians, ch 6 [ANF 1:68]). Any corruption of Christian
teaching due to either Greek or Judaizing influences must be
repudiated (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, ch 6 [ANF
1:82-83]).

Beginning with Ignatius, the first century bishop of Antioch, and
continuing on in the other early church apologists, pagan
philosophy is viewed as the origin of heresy. Heresy denotes a
sect hostile to Christianity because of "an inner relationship
between heretics and the secular philosophical schools or Jewish
sects," particularly Gnosticism. [16] "Indeed heresies are
themselves instigated by philosophy," says Tertullian
(Prescription Against Heretics, ch 7 [ANF 3:246]). Hippolytus
(Refutation of all Heresies, introduction [ANF 5:9]) believes
heretical doctrines "derived their origin from the wisdom of the
Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of
philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of
astrologers." In similar fashion, the accusation of heresy
against preterists is sometimes made on the basis of a supposed
"low view of the body," being "the old error of Platonism." [17]

It must be noted, however, that the attempt to condemn a view by
association with a particular philosophy has occasionally fallen
prey to arbitrariness, as, for example, in the case of
Hippolytus' assertion that Marcion obtained his system from
Empedocles. [18] Furthermore, while Hippolytus and other
apologists condemned certain views because of their purported
derivation from Plato or Aristotle, outstanding theologians
within church history have oft depended heavily on these
philosophers, Augustine on Plato and Thomas Aquinas on Aristotle,
to cite but two obvious examples. Moreover, when it is recognized
that a standard modern criticism of early theology is that the
fathers themselves depended too much on Greek lines of thought,
it seems evident that derivation from pagan philosophy is a
two-edged sword that cuts against orthodoxy as well as heresy and
may depend largely on the one wielding the sword. [19] Indeed, it
has even been suggested that the very idea of orthodoxy evinces a
Greek mind set, with "Greece the source of the true damnosa
hereditas." [20] It must suffice to say that, where philosophy
serves as an aid (but not a presupposition) to understanding and
systematizing theology in a way coherent with Scripture, it is to
be admitted. Those theologians who claim to eschew philosophy are
sometimes the ones most shaped by it, as perhaps most notably in
the case of Karl Barth. Heresy has also been defined on the basis
of its etymology as a choice against the rule of faith. A heretic
is condemned for false doctrines, Tertullian says, "because he
has himself chosen that for which he is condemned," having made a
"choice of that which another has introduced of his private
fancy" (Prescription Against Heretics, ch 6 [ANF 3:245-246]).
Heresy is thus a private opinion contrary to received knowledge
and based on ambiguous passages in Scripture. Irenaeus, for
example, mocks the Gnostic attempt to posit a god above the
Creator by reference to "ambiguous passages of Scripture. . . .
For no question can be solved by means of another which itself
awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense,
can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or
enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such
character receive their solution from those which are manifest
and consistent, and clear" (Against Heresies, bk 2, ch 10, sec 2
(ANF 1:370]). Tertullian appears exasperated in arguing against
the heretics of his day because of their propensity to use
ambiguous texts:

They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and
which they have selected, because of their ambiguity. Though most
skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when
everything which you maintain is denied by the other side, and
whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself,
indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing
but vexation from their blasphemy (Prescription Against Heretics
ch 1 [ANF 3:251]).

Because "a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce
no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the
brain," Tertullian would "oppose to them this step above all
others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the
Scriptures" (Ibid., ch 15 [ANF 3:250-51]). "Our appeal,
therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures," Tertullian says,
but rather to "the true Christian rule and faith," since "there
will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and
all the Christian traditions" (Ibid., 19 [ANF 3:251-252]). Christ
delivered the faith to the apostles, who deposited it in the
churches, with the result that all opinion which has no such
divine origin and apostolic tradition is ipso facto false. [21]
Truth is thus distinguished from falsehood not only by reference
to apostolic authority and tradition, by but chronology, for
there is "the priority of truth, and the comparative lateness of
falsehood" (Ibid., ch 31 [ANF 3:258]).

This tack continues to be employed by those who denounce
preterism, despite the preterist appeal not to ambiguous passages
but rather to clear time references indicating the coming
(parousia) of Christ within his generation. Rather than reconvene
this exegetical discussion, however, Sandlin acerbically asks:

You criticize the Hymenaeans' confessional critics for
insufficient exegesis. Whose exegesis would you prefer? I could
proffer exegesis of orthodox Christians for the last 1800 years.
It is not a question of a void of exegesis but of pitting a
peculiarly modern and heterodox exegesis against the exegesis of
the last 1800 years. Mark it down: every assault on Christian
orthodoxy (like Hymenaenism) by an appeal to a supposedly
unconditioned modern exegesis does not pit the Bible against the
creeds, but a warped, modern understanding of the Bible against
an understanding of the Bible over the last 1800 on a points
[sic] critical to the Faith." [22]

Lateness of doctrinal formulation, however, has never satisfied
to settle biblical debate. Both the Reconstructionists'
postmillennialism and the dispensational premillennialism against
which they also inveigh are modern eschatologies, the former in
its modern form owing much to Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) and the
latter to J. N. Darby (1800-1882). On the other hand, the
prevalent chiliasm of the early church fathers has not rendered
it more credible. It is fundamental to the Reformed approach "not
[to] despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin
fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning
sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we
modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things
differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. . . .
And in the same order also we place the decrees and canons of
councils. Wherefore we do not permit ourselves, in controversies
about religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with only
the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much less by
received opinions, or by the large number of those who share the
same opinion, or by the prescription of a long time" (2nd
Helvetic Confession, ch 2). Rather, assent depends on "the
judgments of men which are drawn from the Word of God."

The idea of an accepted interpretation of Scripture, which
constitutes the tradition of faith, was memorably formulated by
Vincent of Lerins in the fifth century. "On account of the number
and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a
rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in
such a way that is directed by the rule of the Catholic church.
Now in the Catholic church itself the greatest care is taken that
we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by
all people." [23] This consensus fidelium, "the consensus of the
faithful," became a highly influential way of interpreting the
Bible as well as an essential antidote to heresy, though the
aforementioned early statements of faith show aspects of
apparently acceptable diversity, particularly concerning the
nature of the resurrection body. This "fencing of Scripture" with
a rule of faith embodied in a particular tradition, coupled with
the authoritarianism exemplified in Tertullian, eventuated in the
Roman Catholic Church's rife condemnation of peoples who
questioned its authority and held ideas which fell outside
accepted norms, particularly during the Inquisition. In the
twelfth century, Peter Waldo and his followers, called
Waldensians, were condemned simply for making the Scriptures
available in the common tongue and preaching the gospel apart
from papal authorization. The Beguines, groups of women in
twelfth-century France who lived together for the purposes of
economic self-sufficiency and a religious vocation, dedicated to
chastity and charity, were condemned simply for existing without
men, making them suspect to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The
followers of Francis of Assisi were condemned for embracing
voluntary, absolute poverty. Each of these groups were condemned
largely for socio-political reasons, not doctrinal ones.

In the fourteenth century, John Wycliffe's insistence that the
sole criterion of Christian doctrine is Scripture, his
translation of the NT into the common English tongue in 1382, and
his attack on the papacy and transubstantiation as unbiblical,
resulted in his condemnation at the London Blackfriars Council in
1382 and forced retirement from teaching. The Lollards, lay
preachers who continued to proclaim his ideas throughout England,
were condemned by the statute De Haeretico Comburendo ("On the
Burning of Heretics") forced through Parliament in 1401, which
made the proclamation of Lollard ideas a capital offense.

The Bohemian reformer John Huss propagated Wycliffe's views. Huss
and those who followed him, called Hussites, were charged as
heretics, though they saw themselves as devoutly orthodox
Christians. Huss was executed in 1415 for promoting the lay
reading of the Bible in the common language, believing lay people
had the ability to interpret the scriptures for themselves. He
had also condemned the immorality of the priesthood and had
wanted to raise clerical ethical standards in order to address
the financial abuses and sexual immorality which continued to
plague the church. He had supported giving all Christians full
communion at a time when only priests were allowed to receive the
cup. He had opposed the papal selling of indulgences. This all
stemmed from his insistence that the Bible took precedence over
Church leaders and councils. Though he questioned the Church's
authority, he stated at his trial that he would obey the Church
completely if it could prove his statements erroneous. This
statement condemned him in itself because he trusted his own
ability to reason rather than the Church's authority. [24]

Although Huss was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake,
he was a champion of reform and prefigured the Reformation. It is
hardly unexpected, then, that a century later Martin Luther was
perceived as an adherent of Hussite heresy. At the Leipzig
disputation in 1519, Luther was asked by Johannes Eck about Huss
and, while Luther did not go as far in stating his agreement with
Huss at that point as he would later, he did acknowledge the
"most christian" nature of the Hussite faith, despite its
departure from Christian unity. [25] Less than a year later, the
pope demanded that Luther recant and his books be burned, the
papal bull Exsurge domine specifying forty-one heresies in his
writings. A similar kind of bull is issued by Reconstructionists
against preterists today, evidenced in West's injunction that,
"if a church unwittingly carries Hymenaen books," they "should be
torched or removed immediately." [26] How different is this kind
of bull from the open-mindedness of C. H. Spurgeon, who said of
The Parousia written by preterist J. Stuart Russell, it "has so
much of truth in it, and throws so much new light upon obscure
portions of the Scriptures, and is accompanied with so much
critical research and close reasoning, that it can be injurious
to none and may be profitable to all." [27]

The arrogant authoritarianism of the pope did not dissuade
Luther, for on December 10, 1520, he threw the bull into a fire
outside the Elster gate in Wittenburg with the words, "Because
you have destroyed God's truth, may the Lord destroy you today in
this fire." [28] On January 3, 1521, the pope issued the bull of
excommunication Decet romanum pontificem, declaring Luther a
heretic outside the law and subject to death. Luther was summoned
to appear before the Diet of Worms where, on the evening of April
18, 1521, he made his famous stand:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or
by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in
councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred
and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have
quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot
and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor
right to go against conscience. I cannot do otherwise, here I
stand, may God help me. Amen. [29] Many other allusions could be
made to Catholic charges of heresy, such as the silencing of
Galileo following his trial for heresy in 1633, with a tentative
conclusion being that, save for the great christological and
trinitarian formulations of the ecumenical councils, the concept
of heresy has generally been in the eye of the beholder,
particularly the tyrannical Roman Catholic Church of the Middle
Ages, and often has shown itself in an authoritarian
recalcitrance against biblical faith. [30] Catholic retrenchment
following the Reformation, summarized in the slogan semper eadem
("always the same"), became a key element in the polemic against
Protestantism. In the eyes of the Catholic Church up till Vatican
II, Protestants in toto had departed from the purported unity of
teaching throughout the ages and thus "had forfeited their right
to be considered orthodox"; as "an innovation," it was "heterodox
for that very reason." [31] That, of course, has never affected
Protestants unduly, since Reformation confessional statements
regularly reprise the sola scriptura principle and consider all
conciliar formulations to stand under that unique divine
authority.

While Reformation confessions continue to repudiate ancient
trinitarian and christological heresies, such as "the damnable
and pestilent heresies of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius,
and such others as did either deny the eternity of his [Christ's]
Godhead, or the truth of his humanity, or confounded them, or
else divided them" (Scots Confession, ch 6), conciliar
pronouncements are placed under the absolute authority of Holy
Scripture. "The reason why the general councils met was not to
make any permanent law which God had not made before, nor yet to
form new articles for our belief, nor to give the Word of God
authority; much less to make that to be his Word, or even the
true interpretation of it, which was not expressed previously by
his holy will in his Word; but the reason for councils, at least
of those that deserve the name, was partly to refute heresies,
and to give public confession of their faith to the generations
following" (Scots Confession, ch 20).

In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all
human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not
co-ordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the
only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The
value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with
the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an
approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth,
and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church,
while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. . . . Any higher
view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially
Romanizing. Symbololatry is a species of idolatry, and
substitutes the tyranny of a printed book for that of a living
pope. [32]

Critics of preterism, oft beginning their condemnation with
allusion to the creeds, [33] would thus do well to rethink their
commitment to Reformation principles. Sola scriptura meant that
everything believed must have a sufficient basis in Scripture
alone. While "the idea of a 'traditional interpretation of
Scripture' . . . was perfectly acceptable to the magisterial
reformers," their stipulation was "that this traditional
interpretation could be justified" on the basis of Scripture.
[34] This is what Luther's "stand" made clear: "Unless I am
convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason,"
"I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is
captive to the word of God." [35]

The Reformers did not, as critics of preterism imply, approach
their faith and work with a facile repristination of catholic
orthodoxy. When they upheld the Apostles' Creed as the core of
Christian belief, for example, they did so by way of some
reinterpretations of traditional dogma, as is particularly
evident in their divergent teachings on the "descent into hell,"
for which there were given at least three distinct meanings, and
their views of "the holy catholic Church," for which Luther even
substituted "Christian" for "catholic." [36] If it is insisted
that each article of the creeds is essential to salvation, what
is to be made of the Eastern Church's failure to include "the
descent into hell" and "communion of saints" in its versions of
the Apostles' Creed, or its failure to hold to the filioque added
by the West to the Nicene Creed?

Whose version of these creeds and whose interpretation of their
respective statements (including also the difference in them on
the resurrection of the body or of the dead) must be held in
order to be saved? If a creed is a universally recognized
statement of faith, it seems clear there must be some latitude
for difference of interpretation as to what certain statements
mean and, in some cases (e.g., the descent into hell), whether
they are even to be included. Preterists maintain that this also
holds true for the eschatological aspects of the creeds. Inasmuch
as heresy has primarily to do with a denial of the principle that
God has provided redemption in Christ, [37] it may be maintained
that preterism stands fully within the bounds of Christian
orthodoxy as seeing that redemption fully accomplished by Christ.

Are Preterists Guilty of Hymenaeus' Heresy?

Probably the most common characterization of full-preterism is an
association with Hymenaeus, one of two spoken of in 1 Tim 1:20
for having "made shipwreck of their faith," and so "delivered to
Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme." In 2 Tim. 2:17-18,
Hymenaeus and Philetus, are condemned for having "swerved from
the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already" and
"upsetting the faith of some." The Christian Reconstructionist
camp has been particularly vociferous in castigating preterism as
"Hymenaeanism." [38] If Hymenaeus and Philetus believed "the
resurrection is past" and preterists believe the parousia
occurred in A.D. 70 with the coterminous resurrection of the
dead, there might appear to be sufficient similarity to validate
the characterization of preterists among those spoken of in the
NT who believe "the resurrection is past." Some preterists have
responded to this by noting that Hymenaeus and Philetus were
speaking of something as "past" which was still future, namely
the decisive events surrounding A.D. 70 and were therefore
rightly condemned for leading others astray, whereas preterists
are arguing that the parousia and resurrection viewed as having
occurred in A.D. 70 are only "past" from a standpoint after that
date, the completion of the biblical canon, and the completion of
redemption in the release of the church/kingdom/temple of Christ
from the cultic encumbrances associated with the temple in
Jerusalem. True as this is, such a response fails to understand
the basis of the condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus as
proto-Gnostics. Thus, a closer examination of the biblical
historical milieu will make it clear that such a characterization
or association of preterists with Hymenaeus is based on a
superficial reading of the text and is, if anything, an
indictment of the interpretive methodology utilized in such
criticism.

There can be little doubt that Hymenaeus and Philetus were part
of the Christian community who had embraced proto-Gnostic
tendencies and were therefore removed from the community for fear
that they would wrongly influence the church. Gnosticism was a
widely varied movement, but its essential features included: (1)
a radical cosmic dualism that rejects this world and sees the
body as a prison from which the soul longs to escape; (2) a
distinction between an unknown transcendent true God and the
creator Demiurge usually identified with the OT God; (3) belief
that the human race is essentially divine, a spark of heavenly
light imprisoned in a material body; (4) a myth, often of a
premundane fall, accounting for present human suffering; and (5)
the saving knowledge (gnosis) by which deliverance is
accomplished in the release of the enlightened to their heavenly
origin. [39] Gnostic anthropology, which contrasted the Christian
view of humanity as a psychosomatic union with a dualism
involving a pre-existent spark of divine light imprisoned in evil
flesh, correspondingly entails, as Bultmann notes, "a contrast in
eschatology" wherein the true divine self, nurtured by gnosis and
the sacraments, is released at death from the bodily prison to
journey through the angelic aeons back to the Light. This stands
in stark contrast to the Christian conception of the resurrection
of the dead and the last judgment. Finally, "these differences
entail a contrast in christology, since Gnosticism cannot
acknowledge the real humanity of Jesus. Apparent humanity to a
pre-existent heavenly being is only a disguise; if it does not
insist upon declaring Jesus' flesh and blood to be only seemingly
a body, it has to make a distinction between the Redeemer and the
historical person Jesus and assert some such thing as that the
former was only transiently united with the latter (in the
baptism) and left him before the passion." [40]

It has been noted by commentators that there are points of
contact with Paul in some of the Gnostic tenets. According to
Paul, the entrance into the Christian life in baptism is a dying
and rising again with Christ (Col. 2:12; 3:1-3), with the result
"that you have been set free from sin" (Rom. 6:18, 22) which
leads to death. While this was only a portion of Paul's teaching,
it was congenial to those whose basic mind set was contoured by
Greek dualism to think of the body as evil and undeserving of a
resurrection.

Hymenaeus, Philetus, and their companions, then, we may suppose,
were teaching a form of Christianity which was essentially Greek
rather than Jewish in its eschatology, which accepted only half
of Paul's doctrine, rejecting belief in a general resurrection
and insisting that the only valid meaning which the word
'resurrection' could have would relate to the baptismal
experience when the Christian mystically emerged from the waters
of regeneration, having been buried with Christ and raised to
newness of life. This supernatural endowment with the Spirit
meant that the Christian had already achieved victory over death.
[41]

Irenaeus appears to have such a heresy in mind in speaking of
Menander, who declared that "the primary Power" was upon him,
making him "a saviour, for the deliverance of men," that "the
world was made by angels," and that, "by means of that magic
which he teaches, knowledge to this effect, that one may overcome
those very angels that made the world; for his disciples obtain
the resurrection by being baptized into him, and can die no more,
but remain in the possession of immortal youth" (Against
Heresies, bk 1, ch 23, sec 5 [ANF 1:348]). This idea is
apparently also attested in the late second-century apocryphal
book The Acts of Paul (and Thecla, 3:11), where Demas and
Hermogenes say, "we shall teach thee concerning the resurrection
which he says is to come, that it has already taken place in the
children whom we have, and that we are risen again in that we
have come to know the true God." [42] Finally, there are also
clear attestations of the Hymenaean heresy in the Gnostic books
unearthed since World War II at Nag Hammadi. The Treatise on
Resurrection (late second-century) advises, "do not think in
part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the
sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters,
and already you have the resurrection" (I, 4, 49, 10-15). [43]
The Exegesis on the Soul (c. 200 A.D.) aligns regeneration with
baptism, when the soul "received the divine nature from the
Father for her rejuvenation, so that she might be restored to the
place where originally she had been. This is the resurrection
that is from the dead" (II, 6, 134, 5-15). [44] Finally, The
Gospel of Philip (mid third-century) appears to link the
resurrection not simply with baptism, but with chrism, a special
anointing with light: "Those who say they will die first and then
rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection
while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also
when speaking about baptism they say, 'Baptism is a great thing,'
because if people receive it they will live. . . . However, it is
from the olive tree that we get the chrism, and from the chrism,
the resurrection" (II, 3, 73, 1-20). [45] As Berkouwer says, "The
heresy referred to in 2 Timothy 2:18 should be understood as a
form of spiritualism, which believed that the transition from
death to life and to the resurrection from the dead had already
been completed through regeneration," [46] particularly by way of
association with baptism.

It should already be clear that there is no convergence between
preterism and this Gnosticism. To my knowledge, preterists all
believe in the goodness of God's original creation (including the
body), in the unity of God as revealed in Scripture, in the fall
of humanity in Adam, and the need for Jesus Christ, God incarnate
in hypostatic union, to redeem sinners by his substitutionary
atoning death upon the cross. Moreover, preterists in general
uphold the resurrection of Christ and of humanity in a
transformed body, their primary divergence with traditionalists
being over the nature of the resurrection body. This is well
brought out by Ed Stevens who, in responding to the
characterization of preterists as embracing the error of
Hymenaeus and Philetus, asks how this early church could have
surmised that the resurrection had already taken place, if it
held to the resurrection as the resuscitation of the dead body?
Paul could easily have undercut such a supposition by appeal to
bodies still in their tombs, but "Paul doesn't challenge their
concept of the nature of the resurrection, but rather their
timing of it." [47]

Are Preterists Guilty of Heresy on the Nature of the Resurrection
Body?

There is little disputing the fact that most of the early church
fathers held to the resurrection of the very flesh in which one
died. As early as 140, the pseudonymous 2 Clement 9:1-4 insists
that "this flesh" will be raised. [48] This is also seen in
Irenaeus and Tertullian, as was mentioned above, both emphasizing
the intermediate descent into hades of believers. It would also
seem to have been made an ultimatum in the Athanasian Creed,
which asserts that at the coming of Christ "all men shall rise
again with their bodies," a statement which, with all the others
(including the descent into hell), constitutes "the Catholic
Faith: which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly],
he can not be saved." [49]

Adumbrations of an alternative position not requiring the
reassembling of all prior fleshly components may perhaps be seen
in Justin Martyr already in the early second century. In his
First Apology (ch 19 [ANF 1:169]), he notes, "if we were not in
the body," it would appear incredible "that from a small drop of
human seed bones and sinews and flesh be formed into a shape such
as we see. . . . But as at first you would not have believed it
possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop,
and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it
is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been
dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's
appointed time rise again and put on incorruption." While Kelly
cites this as an example of the reassembling of all components,
it may be more in keeping with subsequent thinking, now perhaps
even predominant, which sees the resurrection not as the
reassembling of all previous components in the same flesh, but as
a transformation of the material body based on the slightest
continuity with the previous body. [50]

Since my previous article "Jesus the Preterist" dealt at some
length with the problems associated with the reassembling of the
material corpse, these will not be restated here. What bears
repeating, however, is that recourse to divine omnipotence as a
resolution of these problems is a sacrificium intellectum and
ultimately fideistic, for by making demands of faith which cannot
be rationally explained or defended any religious claim can stand
beyond analysis and yet be required by some magisterium.
Contrariwise, Christian theology has always insisted on the
reasonableness of faith, on the importance and indeed necessity
of rationally defensible demonstrations of what is to be
believed. [51] Christianity's philosophical, theological, and
apologetic aims at systematic coherence require more in terms of
rational explanation than mere recourse to divine omnipotence and
a God of the gaps (deus ex machina). Moreover, inasmuch as there
are two books of revelation, one in creation and the other in
Scripture, which must be coherently explained, any procedure
which neglects consensual scientific understanding in dogmatic
insistence upon a particular view of the resurrection body, for
instance, hardly merits serious attention, let alone a claim to
authority.

For example, one of the questions which seems particularly
problematic for the material continuity notion is the stage of
human being that is to be resurrected and preserved for all
eternity. Will it be the stage of the body at death with all its
wrinkles and decay, or the stage after a terribly disfiguring
accident? Generally some more pristine point of life is the stage
that is purported to be preserved, but when is that? How will
those who have had no such state be resurrected, like the aborted
fetus? These are not trivial matters. Tertullian responded by
saying, "any loss sustained by our bodies is an accident to them,
but their entirety is their natural property. In this condition
we are born. Even if we become injured in the womb, this is loss
suffered by what is already a human being. Natural condition is
prior to injury. As life is bestowed by God, so is it restored by
Him" (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch 57 [ANF 3:589-90]).
Contemporary understanding of genetic disorders, however, would
seem to militate against the easy notion that all disorder is
"injury" to some naturally good condition--some disorders are
congenital, transmitted from the parents and present from the
moment of conception in the DNA. Tertullian's response also does
not cohere with his own insistence on material continuity, for
the resurrection of Christ would indicate that the resurrected
have the very same bodies they had at the moment of death and
that, however enhanced, those bodies will retain the disfiguring
characteristics received prior to death, as in the case of Jesus'
pierced hands, feet, and side which he showed to the disciples
(Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 25-27). [52] Thus, questions raised
against the reassembling of the material corpse must be answered
more satisfactorily than they have been if this view is to be
insisted upon, as it is so acerbically by the Reconstructionists,
for example.

The third-century theologian Origen recognized the inadequacy of
appeal to divine omnipotence in the ridicule it received from his
protagonist, Celsus: "what kind of body is that which, after
being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature,
and to that self-same first condition out of which it fell into
dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake
themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz., that all things are
possible to God" (Against Celsus bk 5, ch 14 [ANF 4:549]).

In his effort to defend the resurrection of the body in a more
rationally satisfying way, Origen suggested the existence of a
form of the body which underlay all the various changes
throughout life and gives to the individual his personal
identity:

Because each body is held together by [virtue of] a nature
that assimilates into itself from without certain things for
nourishment and, corresponding to the things added, excretes
other things . . ., the material substratum is never the same.
For this reason, river is not a bad name for the body since,
strictly speaking, the initial substratum in our bodies is
perhaps not the same for even two days.

Yet the real Paul or Peter, so to speak, is always the same
-- [and] not merely in [the] soul, whose substance neither flows
through us nor has anything ever added [to it]--even if the
nature of the body is in a state of flux, because the form
[eidos] characterizing the body is same, just as the features
constituting the corporeal quality of Peter and Paul remain the
same. According to this quality, not only scars from childhood
remain on the bodies but also certain other peculiarities, [like]
skin blemishes and similar things. [53]

Origen here accepts the concept of the body as flux, expressed in
his day in the Galenic version of humoral theory. He maintains
that the body's constantly changing mass of matter cannot rise,
since it is not even the same from day to day. He sees identity
as preserved in the corporeal form (eidos), not in the material
body. Bynum says, "This eidos is a combination of Platonic form,
or plan, with Stoic seminal reason (an internal principle of
growth or development). A pattern that organizes the flux of
matter and yet has its own inherent capacity for growth, it is
(although I introduce the modern analogy with extreme
hesitation), a bit like a genetic code." [54]

Origen's task having been "the twofold one of expounding the
truth against (a) the crude literalism which pictured the body as
being reconstituted, with all its physical functions, at the last
day, and (b) the perverse spiritualism of the Gnostics and
Manichees, who proposed to exclude the body from salvation,"it is
in Kelly's judgment "from this point of view the resurrection
becomes comprehensible:"

The bodies with which the saints will rise will be strictly
identical with the bodies they bore on earth, since they will
have the same 'form', or eidos. On the other hand, the qualities
of their material substrata will be different, for instead of
being fleshly qualities appropriate to terrestrial existence,
they will be spiritual ones suitable for the kingdom of heaven.
The soul 'needs a better garment for the purer, ethereal and
celestial regions'; and the famous Pauline text, 1 Cor. 15, 42-4,
shows that this transformation is possible without the identity
being impaired. [55]

"Origen thus solved the problem of identity more successfully
than any other thinker of Christian antiquity." [56]

Theology subsequent to Origen tended along two lines, either in
reaffirmation of the traditional dogma of the reassembling of the
material body, defended chiefly by appeal to divine omnipotence,
or in response to Origen, both negatively or positively.
Positively, "Origen's heady sense of the potency and dynamism of
body remained enormously attractive, particularly to Eastern
theologians, over the next 150 years." [57] Among "those
constructive thinkers who strove, some of them along cautiously
Origenistic lines but omitting what was most characteristic of
Origen's teaching, to understand the mystery at a deeper level
than the crude popular faith allowed," as Kelly puts it, were
Gregory of Nyssa (albeit inconsistently), Evagrius, Aphrahat, and
Cyril of Jerusalem. [58]

Negatively, those who opposed Origen did so largely on the basis
of the critique delivered by Methodius of Olympus, who died circa
311. Methodius argued that Origen's eidos had to do only with the
resurrection of a bodily form, not the body as such. He viewed
Origen's "form" as analogous to a mold, external to the body,
which must inevitably perish with its fleshly contents, thus
requiring a material reassembling in the resurrection.
Methodius's argument against Origen was based, however, on a
misinterpretation of Origen's eidos as external, and his own
insistence "that both material continuity and complete bodily
integrity are necessary for resurrection" led him to a view of
identity that denied the reality of change and process. "Thus
Methodius takes identity to lie in material continuity, aware
that he does so by simply denying empirical evidence of organic
change," [59] even going so far as to deny that digestion occurs!
Whatever the deficiencies of Methodius' argumentation, his view
of material reconstitution, buttressed further by the latter
Jerome and Augustine, appears to have prevailed. In 553, at the
fifth ecumenical council, the Second Council of Constantinople,
fifteen anathemas were issued against Origen, the tenth of which
states: "If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body
of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that
such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that
after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and
after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature
of their bodies shall be annihilated: let him be anathema." The
eleventh anathema further states: "If anyone shall say that the
future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that
the end of the story will be an immaterial psysis [sic], and that
thereafter there will no longer be any matter, but only spirit
(nous): let him be anathema." [60]

On the basis of the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople,
there is, therefore, clear historical precedent for condemning
the preterist view of the resurrection body and apparently any
other than a material reconstitution. Notwithstanding, it seems
equally clear that any such condemnation would disingenuously
disinherit many who have been considered stalwarts of biblical
faith and orthodoxy, for it is evident that at least by the
mid-nineteenth century an Origenist view of the resurrection
body, with identity based on an organizing principle and not
material continuity, came to have as much plausibility or more
than the ancient insistence on material reconstitution. In what
Stephen Davis calls "the modern view," a person can be given a
whole new body at the resurrection and still be the same person
who died. While similarity is generally stressed, this may be
maintained through the pattern God remembers as he "gives [to
each] a body just as he wished" (1 Cor 15:38). Although this is
not the traditional view, "it does seem at least a possible
answer to standard anti-resurrection arguments that ask how a
body dead for, say, a thousand years can possibly be
reconstituted" [61] and certainly seems to satisfy the issues
involved better than those who argue so vigorously for material
continuity.

In his Systematic Theology (1871-1873), Charles Hodge allows the
validity of several possible theories of identity, saying the
Bible teaches no specific doctrine. Thus, (1) there may be a
complete restoration of all bodily substance in the resurrection
body, so that as many hairs as have been shaved off, or nails
cut, shall return into that substance from which they grew
(Augustine), a view which, if true, must be submitted to despite
its manifold difficulties in the confidence of God's omnipotence;
or the new resurrection body may be formed out of even a ten
thousandth portion of the particles of the earthly body; (2) the
soul may inform the body which, if this be true, "we should not
stop to inquire or to care how many particles of the one enter
into the composition of the other"; (3) there may be "an identity
independent of sameness of substance," so that "our future
bodies, therefore, may be the same as those we now have, although
not a particle that was in the one should be in the other." [62]
A. A. Hodge, rightly believing "all truth is one, and of God, and
necessarily consistent, whether revealed by means of the
phenomena of nature or of the words of inspiration," viewed the
scientific knowledge of that day as proving "that neither the
identity of the body of the same man from youth to age, nor the
identity of our present with our resurrection bodies consist in
sameness of particles." [63]

James Orr maintained that the doctrine of the resurrection does
not involve any such belief in the reassembling of decayed
material particles.

The solution lies, I think, in a right conception of what it
is which constitutes identity. Wherein, let us ask, does the
identity even of our present bodies consist? Not, certainly, in
the mere identity of the particles of matter of which our bodies
are composed, for this is continually changing, is in constant
process of flux. The principle of identity lies rather in that
which holds the particles together, which vitally organises ond
[sic] constructs them, which impresses on them their form and
shape, and maintains them in unity with the soul to serve as its
instrument and medium of expression. It lies, if we may so say,
in the organic, constructive principle, which in its own nature
is spiritual and immaterial, and adheres to the side of the soul.
At death, the body perishes. It is resolved into its elements;
but this vital, immaterial principle endures, prepared, when God
wills, to give form to a new and grander, because more spiritual,
corporeity. [64]

After quotation of 1 Cor. 15:36-38 and allusion to Origen, Orr
thus considers it clear, "first, that identity consists only in a
very minute degree, if at all-and then only accidentally-in
identity of material particles; and, second, that the real bond
lies in the active, vital principle which connects the two
bodies" of soul and body. [65]

Similarly, in his Systematic Theology A. H. Strong said, "the
Scripture not only does not compel us to hold, but it distinctly
denies, that all the particles which exist in the body at death
are present in the resurrection-body. . . . So long as the
physical connection is maintained, it is not necessary to suppose
that even a germ or particle that belonged to the old body exists
in the new." [66] In his estimation, "Bodily identity does not
consist in absolute sameness of particles during the whole
history of the body, but in the organizing force, which, even in
the flux and displacement of physical particles, makes the old
the basis of the new, and binds both together in the unity of a
single consciousness." [67]

Again, no less a stalwart of Reformed orthodoxy than Louis
Berkhof seems to prefer the concept of a pattern:

We are told that even now every particle in our bodies
changes every seven years, but through it all the body retains
its identity. There will be a certain physical connection between
the old body and the new, but the nature of this connection is
not revealed. Some theologians speak of a remaining germ from
which the new body develops; others say that the organizing
principle of the body remains. Origen had something of that kind
in mind; so did Kuyper and Milligan. If we bear all this in mind,
the old objection against the doctrine of the resurrection,
namely, that it is impossible that a body could be raised up,
consisting of the same particles that constituted it at death,
since these particles pass into other forms of existence and
perhaps into hundreds of other bodies, loses its force
completely. [68]

These testimonies from widely recognized conservative and
evangelical theologians over the past two centuries as to the
legitimacy and even preferability of an Origenist view of
identity would seem to emasculate the significance of the sixth
century anathemas against Origen on this point as they are
applied against preterists.

Modern science has abandoned any notion of permanence in the
world as a whole. Although Einstein's relativity theory did
nothing to undermine the heritage of scientific determinism, the
dawn of the twentieth century heralded its end with the
formulation of quantum mechanics through the work of Max Planck,
Werner Heisenberg, and others. Quantum theory "predicted no
specific observable events, but rather a number or range of
possible results along with formulae for predicting statistically
the chances of obtaining each possible result in any given
instance." [69] Probability, not permanence, has become the new
paradigm for understanding the physical universe, which includes
the present and future conditions of the human body. Any
theological statement on creation's past, present, or future that
wants to be taken seriously (and not dismissed as fideistic) must
interact with contemporary scientific analysis in the common
attempt to understand the other book of divine revelation, what
Francis Bacon called "the book of Nature." [70] Those who have so
interacted have a common understanding of the resurrection body
as transformed, based on an organizing principle. This is surely
the reason why the Origenist concept has gained ground in the
last two centuries and why appeal to the church fathers is simply
not sufficient. Acknowledging that there are "very few atoms left
from among those that were there a few years ago," physicist and
theologian John Polkinghorne says, "The real me is the immensely
complicated 'pattern' in which these ever-changing atoms are
organized. It seems to me to be an intelligible and coherent hope
that God will remember the pattern that is me and recreate it in
a new environment of his choosing, by his great act of final
resurrection." [71]

While some conservatives insist on repristinating the
traditionalist view of the reassembling of the material
components, they do so against trends in scientific as well as
biblical understanding and reveal a motivation not based so much
on truth, understanding and validation as on pugnacity,
invective, and demagoguery. As to the question of the
resurrection body and the "tension between physical and spiritual
approaches," a more evenhanded statement by a renowned
evangelical asserts, "the debate is widely regarded as
speculative and pointless." [72] Although preterists cannot so
easily dismiss the issue, since an Origenist concept is pivotal
to their view that the resurrection indeed began with the
parousia in A.D. 70, there is ample biblical attestation for
their view among theologians and biblical scholars not aligned
with their general eschatology to repudiate any purported heresy.
[73] Indeed, the view advocated by preterists that the
resurrection occurs at death has received confessional
validation: "The Dutch catechism of 1966 says: 'Life after death,
therefore, is something like the raising of the new body. This
resurrection body is not the same as the molecules and atoms that
have entered the earth. We awake-or are woken-as new human
beings.' The 'New Book of Belief' (Das Neue Glaubensbuch) of 1973
puts it more precisely: 'The individual resurrection from the
dead takes place with, and at, death.'" [74] As long as some
aspect of identity with the person laid in the grave is admitted,
therefore, no preterist may justifiably be charged with denying
the resurrection of the body.

Are Preterists Guilty of Heresy on the Final Judgment of
Humanity?

It was during the Tannaitic period, commencing with the Christian
era and culminating in the death of Patriarch Judah in the early
third century, that the body of traditional Jewish law (Mishnah)
was redacted and promulgated under his authority. [75] The
messianic expectation of this period was threefold, consisting of
this world (olam hazzeh), the days of the messiah, and the future
world (olam habba). This traditional Jewish perspective was
altered, however, by the apocalypticism stemming from the latter
second century B.C. This led to some fluidity in Jewish
eschatological hopes for the occurrence of the resurrection. The
books of Daniel and Enoch seem to place the resurrection at the
beginning of the messianic kingdom, while the apocalypses of
Baruch (30:1-4) and 4 Ezra (7:26-33) place it at the end and
conceive it as the event which serves as a transition from the
days of the messiah to the future world (olam habba). The
question posed in 4 Ezra 6:7, "what will be the dividing of the
times? Or when will the end of the first age and the beginning of
the age that follows?" was commonly asked. This is also evinced
in the disciples' question to Jesus at the beginning of the
Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:3; Mark 13:3-4; Luke 21:7), which
Sproul rightly admits was fulfilled in Christ's parousia at the
destruction of Jerusalem, an event which culminated the messianic
age and ushered in the kingdom/church in all its fulness. This
coming is to bring judgment upon the generation that crucified
Jesus, as Jesus himself predicts: "so that upon you will come all
the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood
of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom
you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the
truth, all this will come upon this generation" (Matt 23:35-36),
a summary of all the innocent blood of God's faithful shed from
the beginning of the OT canon to its conclusion, 2 Chronicles
(wherein Zechariah, son of Jehoida, is murdered in 24:20-22)
being the last book in the Hebrew Bible.

Thus, a collective judgment is being imposed on Jesus' generation
in the destruction of Jerusalem, in addition to a declaration on
those that preceded, as is attested in Jesus' comparisons of the
severity of judgment of previous peoples with that of the
generation on which he will come (Matt 11:16-24 [comparison to
Sodom, destroyed in Gen 19:24-25, early second millennium B.C.];
12:39-42 [comparison to Nineveh, to whom Jonah preached, spared
in eighth or seventh century B.C., and Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings
10:1, from tenth century B.C.). Particularly interesting are the
last two statements in Matthew concerning the people of Nineveh
and the Queen of the South (Sheba), both of whom are said to
"rise at the judgment with [meta, "in the company of, alongside")
this generation and condemn it." This emphasis on the gathering
of ancient peoples in judgment culminates in the gathering of the
nations before Christ at his parousia: "when the Son of Man comes
in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his
throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before
him, and he will separate the people one from another as a
shepherd separates the sheep from the goats" (Matt 25:31-32).
Again, if the Olivet Discourse has to do with the destruction of
Jerusalem and that is the time "when the Son of Man comes in his
glory," then it follows ineluctably that Christ's judging of the
nations occurred then, as well.

H. J. Schoeps observes that Paul's eschatology is also founded on
this idea of that he was living at a turning point, "the
fulfillment of the ages" (1 Cor 10:11), save that he saw in the
resurrection of Jesus the commencement of the eschaton.

In this transitional epoch in which Paul and his churches are
living-we are now accustomed to call these decades of his
activity the 'apostolic age'-the olam hazzeh and the olam habba
are already intermingled, thus indicating that the Messianic age
of salvation has dawned. This mingling of the two ages
constitutes the distinctive eschatological standpoint of Pauline
theology. Thus it becomes clear that Paul could only link up with
that form of eschatology which transferred the resurrection of
the dead to the end of the Messianic age (cf. Baruch ch. 20-30;
40:3; IV Ezra 7:26-44). The Messianic age itself, the age of the
apostle, then becomes an interim stage, a transition to the olam
habba. [76]

While this interim period of the messianic age was placed at four
hundred years in 4 Ezra 7:28 and Apocalypse of Baruch 29-30,
"older traditions concerning the days of the Messiah fix a very
short interval for the interim period, namely, forty years (R.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus; Bar. In Sanh. 99a; R. Aqiba: Midr. The. On
Ps. 90:15; Tanch. Eqeb 7b, Pes. Rabb. 4a)." [77] Similarly, the
Qumran materials indicate such a period, as, for instance, the
Damascus Document: "from the day of the gathering in of the
unique teacher, until the destruction of all the men of war who
turned back with the man of lies, there shall be about forty
years" (CD xx, 14-15), and a Commentary on Ps 37:10: "I will
stare at his place and he will no longer be there. Its
interpretation concerns all the evil at the end of the forty
years, for they shall be devoured and upon the earth no wicked
person will be found" (4QPsalms Pesher [4Q17, ii, 6-8]). [78]
While space does not allow further attention to the exegetical
and systematic development of Pauline eschatology, the
aforementioned texts, coupled with the eschatological thrust of
the Olivet Discourse on which Pauline thought here must be based,
provide sufficient attestation for Schoeps' assertion that "Paul
probably held the widespread notion that the interim stage of the
Messianic kingdom would be only of short duration" and that, like
Aqiba and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, "he will have reckoned with forty
years at most." [79] Thus Paul's insistence on the imminence of
Christ's coming judgment on unbelievers and deliverance of his
people (1 Thess 1:10; 5:1-9; 2 Thess 1:4-10, e.g.), an idea
echoed by the other NT writers (Rom 13:11-12; 2 Tim 4:8; Heb
10:23-39; Jas 5:8-9, e.g.). The NT accent on the imminency of
God's judgment on the disobedient and his deliverance in Christ
of his elect compels the exegetical conclusion that the judgment
commenced with the destruction of Jerusalem after the forty year
messianic reign and henceforth continues upon all who die: "just
as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment"
(Heb 9:27; cf. also 2 Cor 5:1-10, where Paul is viewed by some
interpreters as hoping for "the heavenly body at death," with the
judgment of Christ apparently immediately thereafter [80]).
Clearly, Jesus, Paul, and the apostles all viewed the judgment as
imminent. The issue is simply whether they were mistaken in this
expectation.

Preterists thus affirm that, following upon his coming in glory
in the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ exercises judgment after
death upon all. While they generally regard the Great White
Throne Judgment depicted in Rev 20:11-15 as the same depicted in
Matt 25:31-46,81 they maintain that all will be judged at death
when they are resurrected.

Conclusion

"Orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines are those that honor God
rightly," whereas "heresy" refers to the false doctrine of those
who "have abandoned the faith" and move others to do the same.
[82] If heresy has to do with a denial of the principle that God
has provided redemption in Christ, as McGrath says, it is hard to
understand how preterism can be viewed as a heresy, for it
affirms "the orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines" in all points
as expressed in the great creeds and confessions while
endeavoring to "honor God rightly" by insisting that the
consummation of God's redemptive purpose in Christ's parousia has
not been frustrated or postponed, but rather accomplished
according to the clear chronology set forth in the NT. Preterists
believe this evidence is so compelling that they are willing to
suffer the accusations and condemnations of others in their
effort to affirm the words of the apostle Paul: "let God be true,
and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be
proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge'" (Rom
3:4). They invite others seriously interested in investigating
these matters to do so from within the great tradition for the
furtherance of the reformation, recognizing the need of the
church to be "reformed and always reforming according to the Word
of God."

Endnotes

[1] "Jesus the Preterist: A Review of R. C. Sproul's The Last
Days According to Jesus," Quidlobet On-Line Journal of Christian
Theology and Philosophy 1:6 (September, 1999),
http://www.quodlibet.net/otto-sproul.shtml.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97sep/s16.htm. This critique,
together with other views of preterism favorable or critical, can
be found in what can be called the clearinghouse of information
on the subject, "The Preterist Archive"
(http://preteristarchive.com/).

[4] In his "Introduction to Preterism"
(http://preteristarchive.com/Preterism/fp-dennis_01.html), Todd
D. Dennis, a proponent of preterism, makes the unfortunate
statement, "Preterist theology is unorthodox." Though he takes
orthodox to mean "generally accepted, conventional," the word
derives from the Greek orthos, "correct," and doxa, "opinion,"
and has to do with what is correct, not merely conventional,
though the two are typically conjoined, as, e.g., "conforming to
the usual beliefs or established doctrines, especially in
religion; proper, correct, or conventional; as, orthodox ideas,
opposed to heterodox" (Webster's 20th Century Dictionary). Such
misstatement is too common among preterists, which feeds the
frenzy against them. Surely if, as Dennis says, preterism is "a
Biblical theology," then it must not be characterized or
caricatured as unorthodox or heterodox.

[5] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; William F. Arndt,
F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979]) s.v., "hairesis" (a, b [23-24]). The
corresponding term in rabbinic Judaism, min, first denoted
"trends and parties within Judaism," but soon came to be applied
to those groups which separated from rabbinic Judaism. "At the
end of the 2nd century the term acquired a new meaning, being
applied not so much to the members of a sect within Judaism as to
the adherents of other faiths, and esp. Christians and Gnostics"
(H. Schlier, "hairesis," Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament [ed. Gerhard Kittel; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1964] 1:182).

[6] H. Schlier, "hairesis," TDNT, 1:182-183. So Harold O. J.
Brown who, after describing the church as an ark, says: "Heresy
not merely undermines one's intellectual understanding of
Christian doctrine, but threatens to sink the ark, and thus to
make salvation impossible for everyone, not merely for the
individual heretic" (Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror
of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1984] 2).

[7] Philip Schaff notes all of what he calls "Scripture
confessions" in The Creeds of Christendom (1931; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1990 rep.) 2:3-8; so also John H. Leith, Creeds of the
Churches (rev. ed.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1973) 12-16.

[8] Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 11; cf. Schaff, Creeds of
Christendom, 2:4-9

[9] Jim West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of
'Dispensable Eschatology',"
(http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97/jul/s09.htm) and Andrew
Sandlin, "Hymenaeus Resurrected,"
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_preterist.html,
respectively.

[10] This translation is taken from Schaff, Creeds of
Christendom, 2:11-12, where the Greek text is included, the
brackets signifying the longer Greek recension.

[11] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:13-14.

[12] Ibid., 2:17.

[13] Ibid., 2:46n.

[14] Sandlin, "Hymenaeus Resurrected,"
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_preterist.html.

[15] Sandlin, "Against Hymenaeanism: The Charity of Intolerance,"
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy_Hymenaen.html.
Moreover, "the corporeal aspect" of Christ's resurrection is not
even mentioned "in Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian
Christology" (http://www.chalcedon.edu/article_hy_Hibbard.html).
See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 57-65.

[16] Schlier, "hairesis," TDNT, 1:183.

[17] West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism."

[18] E. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London: SPCK, 1948)
67; although the attempt has been made since the early apologists
to find the source of Marcion's dualism in Iranian speculation,
Jewish cosmology, Gnosticism, and philosophers as diverse as
Plato, Empedocles, and Epicurus, R. Joseph Hoffmann says that the
effort to find "philosophical analogues for marcionite doctrines
is characterized by contradiction and inconsistency" (Marcion: On
the Restitution of Christianity [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984]
11). There is little doubt that Marcion's views were largely
derived from his peculiar reading of the Pauline epistles; cf.
also Randall E. Otto, "The Problem with Marcion: A Second-Century
Heresy Continues to Infect the Church", Theology Matters 4
(1998):1-8.

[19] "The eleventh and twelfth centuries saw a growing conviction
that philosophy could be an invaluable asset to Christian
theology," in demonstration of the reasonableness of faith and in
systematizing doctrine. By about 1270, Aristotle was established
as "the Philosopher," whose ideas furnished the presuppositions
for theology, particularly through the influence of Thomas
Aquinas and Duns Scotus. "This development came to be viewed with
concern by some later medieval writers, such as Hugolino of
Orvieto. A number of central Christian insights seems to have
been lost, as a result of a growing reliance upon the ideas and
methods of a pagan philosopher," in particular the nature of
justification (Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An
Introduction to the History of Christian Thought [Oxford:
Blackwell, 1998] 119).

[20] Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon
the Christian Church (1895; rep. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995)
xiv, 137-138.

[21] The appeal to apostolic tradition as the precedent for true
faith is also found in Tertullian's contemporary, Clement of
Alexandria (Stromata ch 17 [ANF 2:554-555]).

[22] Sandlin, "Against Hymenaeanism."

[23] McGrath, Historical Theology, 44.

[24] http://topaz.kenyon.edu/projects/margin/heresy.htm is a good
on-line source for material on medieval heresies, including the
Beguines, the Cathars, the Hussites, the Joachimites, the
Lollards, and the Waldensians. Brown's Heresies is probably still
the unsurpassed compilation.

[25] J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the
Sixteenth Century (1846; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976 rep) 173.

[26] West, "Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism," 10.

[27] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Study of the New
Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming (1887; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1983 rep.) back cover.

[28] I have on the wall of my study a copy of an 1834 print by H.
Schile, based on an original by H. Br�ckner, entitled "Das Leben
Martin Luther's und die Helden der Reformation!," the central
focus of which is a portrayal of Luther defiantly casting this
bull into the fire, surrounded by banners featuring the words of
his famous "battle hymn," "Eine feste Burg ist unsere Gott!" and
"Das Wort Gottes bleibt in Ewigkeit. Amen."

[29] Cited from Lewis W. Spitz, The Renaissance and Reformation
Movements (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971) 2:329.

[30] Thus, the closest Brown comes to giving his "definition of
heresy" is the practical significance "involved in the doctrine
of God and the doctrine of Christ" (Heresies, 2-3).

[31] McGrath, History of Theology, 173.

[32] Schaff, Creeds, 1:7.

[33] Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., "A Brief Theological Analysis of
Hyper-Preterism,"
(http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97/jul/s09/htm), for example,
begins by saying, "First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is
outside of the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows
any Second Advent in A.D. 70. No creed allows any other type of
resurrection than a bodily one."

[34] McGrath, Historical Theology, 182.

[35] The radicality of Luther's thrust is seen in his
reevaluation of the basis of authority itself, relegating four
books of the NT (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) to a
subordinate status because they did not "put forth Christ"
(treibet Christum). Though the other Reformers did not follow
Luther here, they did all relegate the apocryphal books to a
non-canonical, as opposed to a deuterocanonical, status, striking
against its recognized status of over twelve centuries

[36] On the various interpretations of "the descent into hell,"
see Randall E. Otto, "Descendit in inferna: A Reformed Review of
a Creedal Conundrum," Westminster Theological Journal 52
(1990):143-150 where, because of the dubious intention behind its
insertion and "the fact that no consensus has been or apparently
can be reached on its meaning," the recommendation is made to
omit it from liturgical use; cited with approval by Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 594. For the
Reformers' reinterpretation of the nature of the communion of the
saints and holy catholic church, see, e.g., McGrath, Historical
Theology, 200-207.

[37] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (2nd
ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997)175-176.

[38] E.g., the series "Articles by Andrew Sandlin concerning the
Hymen��n Heresy" at
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_hy.html. Also, Jim
West, "The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism." The condemnation by
the RCUS also uses this terminology.

[39] Robert McL. Wilson, "Gnosticism," The Oxford Companion to
the Bible (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993) 255-256.

[40] Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951) 1:168.

[41] Fred D. Gealy, "II Timothy," Interpreter's Bible (ed. George
A. Buttrick; New York: Abingdon, 1955) 11:491; so also A. T.
Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (New Century Commentary; ed.
Matthew Black; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982) 136; A. J. B.
Higgins, "The Pastoral Epistles," Peake's Commentary on the Bible
(ed. Matthew Black; Nashville: Nelson, 1962) 1005, et al.

[42] Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm
Schneemelcher; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2:356-357. In the
Letter of the Corinthians to Paul 2:11-15, a question is raised
about two men named Simon and Cleobius who say "that God is not
almighty, and that there is no resurrection of the flesh, and
that the creation of man is not God's (work), and that the Lord
is not come in the flesh, nor was he born of Mary, and that the
world is not of God, but of the angels." The Letter of Paul to
the Corinthians 3:33 follows with assurance that "you also who
have been cast upon the body and bones and Spirit of the Lord
shall rise up on that day with your flesh whole."

[43] James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977) 53. In his Introduction, 4-5,
Robinson specifically mentions the texts here cited as standing
in line with the persons and views mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:16-18.

[44] Ibid., 185.

[45] Ibid., 140-141, 144.

[46] G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1972)184.

[47] Stevens, Stevens [sic] Response to Gentry (Bradford, PA:
Kingdom Publications, 1997) 34-35.

[48] The additional citations found in J. N. D. Kelly, Early
Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978) 463, from
The Epistle of Barnabas, ch 21 and 1 Clement 24:6 do not yield
the evidence he cites for "rising again in the self-same flesh."

[49] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:69-70. This creed is
generally acknowledged to be later than Athanasius on the basis
of the doctrinal formulations; J. N. D. Kelly dates it sometime
after 428. The creed was never officially recognized by the
Eastern Church, and its condemnatory language has been a source
of controversy. See "Athanasian Creed," The Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church (2nd ed.; ed by F. L. Cross, E. A.
Livingstone; New York: Oxford University Press, 1983)100-101.

[50] Origen makes much of the seed analogy in Against Celsus, bk
5, chs 18-19 (ANF 4:550-551). After asserting that "the
resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the
Churches," is "more clearly understood by the more intelligent
believer," he states, "neither we, then, nor the holy Scriptures,
assert that with the same bodies, without a change to a higher
condition, 'shall those who were long dead arise form the earth
and live again'," as Celsus supposed. Origen then refers to
Paul's seed analogy in 1 Cor. 15:15:42-44.

[51] See, e.g., Diogenes Allen, The Reasonableness of Faith
(Washington: Corpus, 1968) and his chapter by the same name in
Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: The Full Wealth of
Conviction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989) 128-148.

[52] In his Sentences, Peter Lombard used Eph 4:13 to contend
that each would rise with "the stature he had (or would have had)
in youth," i.e., about the age of thirty, since that is when
Christ died! (C. W. Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in
Western Christianity, 200-1336 [New York: Columbia University
Press, 1995] 122).

[53] Origen, Fragment on Psalm 1:5, in Methodius, De
resurrectione, bk 1, chaps 22-23, cited in Bynum, Resurrection of
the Body, 64.

[54] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 66.

[55] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 471.

[56] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 66.

[57] Ibid., 68.

[58] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 475-479; Bynum,
Resurrection of the Body, 71-86.

[59] Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, 71.

[60] "The Anathemas Against Origen," II. Constantinople. A.D.
553," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 14:319. While Origen may
have taught the resurrection body was spherical, "there is no
explicit mention of this notion in any of Origen's known
writings" (McGrath, Christian Theology, 559).

[61] Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the
Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993) 113.

[62] Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1981 rep.) 3:775-780.

[63] A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter &
Brothers, 1875) 442-444.

[64] James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World as
Centering in the Incarnation: Being the First Series of Kerr
Lectures [1891] (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907)
331-332.

[65] Ibid., 332.

[66] Augustus. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H. Revell, 1907)1019.

[67] Ibid., 1020.

[68] Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1941)723.

[69] Mark W. Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 27.

[70] The lack of engagement with consensual science on matters
related to cosmology is abundantly evident in the "Committee
Paper Investigating Full Preterism" of Heartland Presbytery
(PCA), which claims preterism has a "defective view of Adam and
Eve's pre-fall bodies" and of cosmology in general for its
contention that death and decay in the physical realm do not
derive from Adam's fall. The issues here devolve into a PCA
requirement for a young earth, since Adam's fall is required as
the basis of all death. This not only stands against their own
conservative Reformed tradition as expressed in Warfield and
Machen, both of whom believed in an old earth and the "day-age"
theory (cf. David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders:
The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary
Thought [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987]), it also stands
obscurantly against the entire current of contemporary science,
which can be well harmonized with the old-earth view (cf., e.g.,
Don Stoner, A New Look at an Old Earth: What the Creation
Institutes are Not Telling You About Genesis [Paramount, CA:
Schroeder, 1992]).

[71] John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, & Christianity (New York:
Crossroad, 1997) 92-93.

[72] McGrath, Christian Theology, 560.

[73] E.g., Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in
the New Testament, Including a Response to Norman L. Geisler
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God
and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977) 74-88.

[74] Cited by J�rgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian
Eschatology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 103.

[75] The standard work on Judaism in this period remains the
three volume work by George F. Moore, Judaism in the First
Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1966).

[76] Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of
Jewish Religious History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961) 99.

[77] Ibid., 100.

[78] Citations are from Florentino G. Martinez, The Dead Sea
Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1994) 46, 203, respectively. Schoeps also says the idea is
portrayed in "the final war against the sons of darkness,"
presumably the War Scroll, but I have not been able to verify
that citation.

[79] Schoeps, Paul, 101.

[80] C. S. C. Williams, Peake's Commentary, 970; cf. also Harris,
From Grave to Glory, 205-214.

[81] Thus, e.g., Russell, The Parousia, 523-525.

[82] Brown, Heresies, 1.

Rev. Randall Otto is Pastor of Deerfield Presbyterian Church,
Deerfield, NJ 08313, with a Ph.D. in Historical and Theological
Studies from Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

--

Pastor Dave

The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.

"A text without a context becomes a proof-text
for a pre-text" - Carson

[Ike E 1/2/2010]

"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message

news:09nqj51huqq9dkat2...@4ax.com...

>
> Preterism and the Question of Heresy,

It's no question that Preterism is heresy--not a SINGLE DENOMINATION
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD has ever even remotely considered it a viable
eschatological view.

[snippeth]

Ike