Re: Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure
Your second sentence here actually looks a bit unclear.
To be crystal clear, are you saying that Matthew 24:30-31 was first century and doesn't speak of the 2nd Coming?
But something like 1 Thess. 4 is about a future 2nd Coming?
I'm guessing you mean pre-trib which I don't think is Biblical.
So if someone wants to interpret against the evidence of contemporary sources, or sources close-ish to that time, then I'm thinking that they need something very solid on their side.
"For now modern postmillennialists are resisting hyper-preterism but this paper will contend that eventually their system must collapse under its own inconsistency. It must succumb to the gangrene of the Philetian and Hymenaean heresy."
Preterism will spread to become "radical preterism". Partial preterism is inconsistent. When you go down that path, some are going to take it to the conclusion of "consistent preterism".
I believe that text was fulfilled in the events of the first century. But I want to be absolutely clear: this does not mean that I do not believe that will come again in the future.
Your second sentence here actually looks a bit unclear.
To be crystal clear, are you saying that Matthew 24:30-31 was first century and doesn't speak of the 2nd Coming?
But something like 1 Thess. 4 is about a future 2nd Coming?
Do you believe in a rapture?
I'm guessing you mean pre-trib which I don't think is Biblical.
A point I would make is that early sources aren't just a matter of "tradition" but are good evidence for how language was being used and understood around the time period.In any event, I believe that it is fundamentally the strength of the exegesis that matters, not the "tradition".
So if someone wants to interpret against the evidence of contemporary sources, or sources close-ish to that time, then I'm thinking that they need something very solid on their side.
The point the article was making was that:I would not disagree with the assertion that "preterism "spreads" taking in more and more of the scripture". But that is not surprising if elements of the preterist position are, in fact, correct. We should not be surprised that scripture displays an internal unity and coherence.
"For now modern postmillennialists are resisting hyper-preterism but this paper will contend that eventually their system must collapse under its own inconsistency. It must succumb to the gangrene of the Philetian and Hymenaean heresy."
Preterism will spread to become "radical preterism". Partial preterism is inconsistent. When you go down that path, some are going to take it to the conclusion of "consistent preterism".