A few professors associated with Liberty
University are beginning to panic over
Preterism.
Preterism is False, Is it True or False?, is a
reply to objections raised by panicking
Dispensationalists. Preterism is a Latin
term which means past.
From the perspective of Bible prophecy,
it refers to all end times events as having
been fulfilled in the past. It is the opposite
of futurism, which holds those events to be yet to come in the future.
Dr. Edward Hinson, Assistant to the Chancellor at Liberty University
wrote an article entitled, The New Last Days Scoffers, as an attempted refutation of Preterism. The article appeared in the May 2005 issue of Jerry Falwell’s The National Liberty Journal. We offer a critique of that article.
Identifying the Last Days After a brief summary, Hinson cites 2 Pet. 3:4, (scoffers shall come in the last days) as a warning against Preterism. The problem Dispensationalism encounters is its inability to accurately identify the last days of the Bible.
Hebrews 1:2, tells us that the Lord spoke in the last days. Salvation was first spoken of by the Lord, then later confirmed with miracles by those who heard him, (Heb. 2:3).
But Christ did not live in the Christian age. In the fullness of the times (an equivalent expression of the last days), he was born of a woman, born under the law, (Gal. 4:4).
Thus, the last days and fullness of the times belong to the time of the Old Covenant, not the New. The Old Covenant, in its last days, and affirmed by the apostles as growing old and becoming obsolete (Heb. 8:13) drew near to vanishing at the time both Paul and Peter wrote.
Moses, prophesying to Israel of their last days, (Deut. 31:29), speaks of them as the perverse and crooked generation, (Deut. 32:5). Both Paul and Peter identified the generation of their day as the one Moses prophesied about, (Acts 2:40, Phil. 2:15).
Therefore, Israel was in their last days. Another challenge to Hinson’s assertion about the scoffers is that Jude identifies them as already present in the times of the Apostles.
“But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. (Jude 17–18)
Note the next verse, (19):
“These are sensual persons who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.”
Jude says these mockers were identified in his day as those who cause divisions. Dr. Hinson’s argument is anachronistic, an error in time. The language is present tense. Nor was it speaking proleptically (in the future), for their behavior is further noted by the phrase, “not having the Spirit.”
This separated them from the first century church who had received the “gifts of the Holy Spirit” beginning on Pentecost.
The Absurdity of the New Last Days Scoffers Charge
If the coming (parousia) spoken of in 2 Peter 3:4, would not arrive until a time future to us today, would not the scoffers have been correct in asking “Where is the promise of his coming?” Isn’t that the very question and position which Dr. Hinson raises as his objection?
Reader, please get this point. Note this illustration. If Dr. Hinson teaches a yet future coming today, and I “scoff” at that by denying it, that means I am scoffing against what is currently being taught, namely a yet future coming.
On the other hand, since I teach that Christ’s coming occurred in the past, in the first century, and Dr. Hinson rejects that as he does in print, then he scoffs at Preterism, namely that Christ returned in the first century. He could not scoff against it if it were not being taught and if he were in agreement with it.
Now, consider: Jude writes that the mockers scoffed at the apostles teaching by asking “Where is the promise of his coming?” They could not be styled scoffers or mockers against the apostles if the apostles were not teaching the very opposite of what the scoffers mocked.
This means the apostles taught that Christ would return in the first century, hence the mockers asked, “Where is the promise?” If that is not the issue, then Peter and Jude should have given the scoffers the right hand of fellowship and said thank you for helping us teach against the Preterist view that Christ would soon come to destroy Jerusalem.
But if Peter and the other apostles taught that Christ would not return until centuries later, the scoffers would not be scoffers but believers!
Preterism is False, Is False? A Review of the First Epistle
In his charge against Preterism, Dr. Hinson omits that Peter directed his readers to his first epistle as a reminder of what he taught about Christ’s coming. By reading this, we will find why the scoffers were mocking against the coming Peter taught.
In other words, when you remind someone of what you previously said, you do not say something different, you repeat by restating what you’ve already told them. Peter’s second epistle and eschatology is the same as that found in his first epistle.
In chapter one, he told his readers that salvation was ready to be revealed. (1:5) He then cites the prophets as those who spoke of salvation which would be brought to “us,” i.e. first century saints, who had received the Holy Spirit, through those who had preached the gospel to them. (1:9–12).
Peter makes the point that his readers have the Holy Spirit. (See this point above for Jude’s hearers). Next, he tells that same audience, to hope to the end for the grace which would be brought to them at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Thus, he told them to expect Christ’s return in their lifetime. In chapter 4, Peter expressly stated that God was ready (hetoimos) to judge the living and the dead.
Compare Paul’s statement in 2 Timothy 4:1, where he uses “mello” which means “about to” in a similar statement, thus God was about to judge the living and the dead.
Peter adds emphasis in verse seven. “But the end of all things has drawn near.” Writing approximately AD 64 or later, Peter affirms that Christ’s coming to destroy Jerusalem had drawn near.
Thirdly, he states For the time of the judgment had come, 1 Peter 4:17. Now the mockers and scoffers resisted these words. They stoned Stephen to death for saying Christ would come and destroy unbelieving Israel and change the customs he gave Moses, (Acts 6:14).
So after almost a generation later, some 35 years, since Pentecost, the scoffers, feeling confident that the temple would not fall, that Christ was a false prophet, the apostles were liars, and hence Jesus would not come, mocked their teaching as they looked at what seemed to them, an impregnable temple.
They viewed as an impossibility that one who had been put to death would come again. Remember, even Jesus’ own disciples could not imagine the destruction of the temple with it’s massive stones, (Matt. 24:1–2).
With the background of the first epistle teaching the imminence of Christ’s parousia and coming in judgment, Peter reminds his readers in the second epistle of what he said in the first.
If the Apostle had spoken of a coming centuries later as Hinson affirms, Peter could have simply said “Amen” to the scoffers because they would have been in agreement.
In Will Planet Earth Be Destroyed? with a verse by verse interpretation of 2 Peter 3, a thorough treatment is given of Peter’s teaching on the Scoffers, the end of heaven and earth, the coming new heaven and earth, and much, much more. This book is an outstanding contribution to the study of eschatology. Read this now
PR: 
I: 
I: 
The ascension was physical. The disciples saw it with their very own eyes, and the angel told them that Christ would return in the same way, ie a physical descent.
By no stretch of the imagination did this happen in 70AD. Therefore it is yet to happen
If you are a full preterist you deny the general resurrection of all, and clearly this current earth, full of woe and war is as good as it gets. There is no blessed hope and christ may as well not exist
Moreover the scholarship whereby you claimed that eretz means only the local land is exploded by the very first use of the word in Genesis 1:1. Or would you tell me that in trhe beginning God created the heavens and the local land of israel?
You have solidified my conviction that preterism is pure heresy, for it violates so much scripture in defiance of the Author thereof
Steve, you rush to judgment in your enthusiasm to condemn preterism. You seem to be eager to find something to condemn so you can feel good about the insecurities of your futurist position. Surely you've heard the saying, that which proves too much proves nothing. The ascension in Acts 1:11, was:
(1) limited to Jesus' disciples, all of whom lived in the first century. Now, if He promised THEY would see Him return in like manner. So, if you're going to argue for such literalism you are committed to an appearance to eleven men! Where does Acts 1:11 include you, or anyone living today? It doesn't. The most you can get out of that context is first century disciples. It is they to whom he promised to come.
(2) The words "in like manner" from "hon tropon" in Greek does not mean "in the same body" but is an adverbial phrase which modifies the verb phrase, "shall so come." It focuses on Jesus' ascension in a cloud. He certainly returned in a cloud in A.D. 70, (Matt. 24:30, 34). Further, if you stretch "in like manner" to such literalism, please explain how Jesus "gathers the Jews as a hen [in like manner] gathers her chicks under her arms? Would he return in 70 AD with all the unbelieving Jews under His arms to protect them like a mother hen? See where your literalism takes you?
(3) Jesus returns in judgment and vengeance. Did he take vengeance upon his ascension?
(4) Are you really willing to put your neck on the line and affirm that Jesus cannot change form from physical to spiritual and be the SAME JESUS? If not, then how did He exist as the Word before His incarnation? "And the Word was made flesh…(John 1:14). Now was the Word, the same as the incarnate Jesus or were they two altogether different people? Now if Jesus re-assumed all the glory of God he had before his incarnation at His ascension (see John 17:3), then would he not be the SAME Jesus as before and after His incarnation. That's a pretty weak position to me.
(5) If a change of form equates to a change of person, then Jesus was not the Word, but an impostor!
(6) The time statements spoken of in Matthew 24:30-34, govern the coming of Christ in Acts 1:11. His coming in the clouds in Matt. 24:30-34 happened before the first century generation passed, (in the generation of the apostles just as Acts 1:11 stated). Now are you going to deny that Jesus came in 70 AD at all? Are you going to deny that all the tribes of the land mourned and saw Him coming in the clouds?" Are you going to affirm that the Christ who came in the clouds in 70 AD was not the same Jesus who had ascended to heaven in Acts 1:11. Let's see if you will go on record with that?
(7) The coming of the Lord in His eternal kingdom occurs during the days of the 4th beast according to Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 2:44-45; 7:8-14; 26ff). Are we yet living in the days of the 4th beast? Is Rome yet ruling the world? Compare Luke 21;20-22, 32. You don't have a context for futurism, which is probably why you chose not to make an argument, but only offered a mere statement.
Now, to your point on the resurrection. It sounds as though you don't have a clear hermeneutic for your position, but that your personal beliefs determine your doctrine. Resurrection is the fulfillment of the "Law and the Prophets," (Matt. 5:17-18; Acts 24:14-15; 26:6-8; 22-23). Now would you also go on record to say that the Law is yet unfulfilled. Remember Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law or the Prophets till all are fulfilled. Now if resurrection is yet unfulfilled then the Law is yet binding.
Not only that, but Paul, not only quotes Daniel 12:2 in Acts 24:15-15, he also quotes it in Rom. 13:11-12. There he says, "And do this, knowing he time that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light." Now, if you claim you believe the Bible, and I have no reason to question it, then why don't you accept the words "now" and the "day is at hand, (literally has drawn near). Paul didn't write that yesterday, he wrote it in the first century. Therefore, he said the resurrection and day of salvation was at hand, and the hour had come for them to awake out of sleep. More could be written hear, but I'll await your response. Hopefully, you won't allow your futurist general resurrection concepts to argue that Paul was a false teacher for saying the hour of resurrection had drawn near.
The Blessed Hope of Christ
Here is another futurist blunder, i.e. that of assuming that a hope fulfilled or the realization of a hope destroys or negates hope. If that is true, then if Christ were to come in the future as you asset, would that not mean that Christ may as well not exist? See how weak that reasoning is? It destroys your own false hope! Let me repeat it in the form of a syllogism. Christ's coming destroys hope and means that He may as well not exist. Christ comes tomorrow or next year (in your view). Therefore, when Christ comes tomorrow or next year, He may as well not exist!
Again, if your argument is true, and if it applies to a past coming of Christ, it must also be true for "any" past coming of Christ. So, here's the other side of your reasoning. Christ's coming into the world the first time was the hope of the world. Christ's coming the first time occurred in the first century, i.e. hope accomplished. Therefore, according to Steve, Christ may as well have not existed. Is that why the Jew's killed him?
Your logic is thereby exposed as totally false and is equally so regarding Jesus' coming in A.D. 70.
Your view of hope is a direct contradiction of scripture. "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but when the desire comes it is a tree of life." (Prov. 13:25). Now, it is not hope fulfilled that makes the heart sick. It is hope "deferred, delayed or unfulfilled" Jesus, Paul, Peter and the N.T. writers all said the coming of the Lord was near, and soon to happen in their day. Was it deferred, delayed, or postponed. That, is what God says makes the heart sick.
When your parents promised you gifts when you were a kid, did the fact that they fulfilled their promise destroy your faith in them or confirm the fact that they were loving parents? How does your hope doctrine work here?
Genesis 1:1
Finally, on the Genesis 1:1, text. I wholly agree that Genesis 1:1 means the entire earth, as eretz does sometimes include the whole earth. Certainly the first mention of the term does so. That was never denied. That is the basis of the figurative use of the term elsewhere as in Zephaniah 1:2. My point was that it does not always. So, as I asked in the post, does eretz in Genesis 12:1, mean the whole globe as in Gen. 1:1. What earth did Abraham leave to get to Canaan? Clearly "eretz" is also translated to mean the land, whether of Egypt or Canaan in some texts. I don't deny the global use. But contextually, the global meaning doesn't always fly. So, your argument there is misrepresentation of my point.
Now, if you want to be solidified in futurism in view of the bad arguments you have made, that is your prerogative. However, I've demonstrated that the foundation for futurism is weak indeed. I invite you to make another attempt if you are disposed so to do.
what do you make of hebrews chapter 1 vrs10,11 and 12,where do they fit in
Hebrews 1:10-12 refers is a contrast between the Old Covenant system of Moses which will pass away as a garment wears out and the kingdom of Christ which has no end and stands forever. Those themes are enlarged upon in the book. See chapter 2:5; 6:5 and 12:18-28, where the contrast is again the Old Covenant world versus the heavenly Jerusalem or new covenant world in Christ. I have recently published a new book, "Will Planet Earth Be Destroyed?" It can be ordered at Amazon.com or by following this link you can get it from our e-store: https://createspace.com/3485136. Also see our other title "Living in Eternity" which covers these themes at https://createspace.com/3489133