BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM
It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
The Shoehorn Theology of Paul Manata's TAAHP Argument
By Michael Krall
The term shoehorn theology is one that we heard coined by a brother (that’s you Burt) whereby one tries to force certain texts to fit into their preconceived premise that they are convinced is true. It could just be another way of saying eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. The author of the article on the transcendal argument against hyper preterism (TAAHP), Paul Manata, we believe has to do some real hermeneutical gymnastics in order to appear consistent and has used this shoehorn approach in his hermeneutic. We do not mean any disrespect to Mr. Manata nor are we trying to belittle him and his beliefs in any way. We would hope to follow the admonition in Scripture that says to “honor all men” and we hope we do not violate that here.
Now the basic premise Mr. M has set forth and the thing we want to deal with is his belief that the Revelation 21-22 passages concerning the New Heavens and New Earth (NH and NE from hereon) cannot be a description the New Covenant. He has set forth his argument that he believes disproves the Preterist position. We have dealt with his argument extensively in 2 previous articles so we will not deal with that here. What we will do here is show the inconsistency of his position and show how he has to shoe horn his theology to fit his own conclusions.
Before we do that we must make a statement here for clarification. We Preterists in once sense are at a disadvantage in that proving Mr.M wrong, which we believe we have, does not prove Preterism for there are many partial Preterists, such as Puritan John Owen and other Postmillennialists ( the camp that Mr. M is from) that would agree that the NH and NE is the gospel age. But if it can be shown that it is not the gospel age it would prove Preterism wrong. So we really have little to gain in debating this issue for all we have done is taken one step forward if we prove to be right on this topic. Our reasons for doing it nonetheless is to defend what we believe is the truth for if it cannot stand up to all attacks then we would most certainly call what we believe into question for we only desire to know the truth as it is in Jesus.
The first shoehorn is his belief that the passage in the Old Testament concerning a NH and NE in Isaiah 65-66, cannot be the same as Revelation 21-22. Now this is strange indeed for Peter speaks of a promise of a NE and NE after the destruction of the present heaven and earth of Peter’s day. Now what passage did Peter have in mind since there is no other Old Testament passage that speaks of a NH and NE other than Isaiah 65-66? In addition the NH and NE that is described in Rev 21 replaces the FIRST heaven and earth not a SECOND one which would have to be the case if Mr. M’s view is the correct one. But Mr. M does clearly see that whatever the NH and NE of Isaiah is, it cannot be talking about an eternal state due to the very language of the text. So he rightly attaches that to something in time not the eternal state nor heaven itself.
But here is his dilemma. When he gets to Revelation 21 –22 even though it is symbolic language he cannot see how metaphorical language is being used in a different way to describe the same thing. He can’t because to do so would most definitely show that the NH and NE in Rev 21-22 has to be the New Covenant and that would undermine his whole attack on Preterism. He cannot see that no more death is referring to John 11:26 where all true believers are said by our Lord “shall never die.” Nor does he see no more liars in the NH and NE is right out of Zeph 3:13. For once one acknowledges that the NH and NE in all of Scripture is the New Covenant then there is no room left for a destruction of the physical heavens and earth in Scripture. Once one is convinced that there must be a cataclysmic end to all things it is hard to let go of that position even if it means resorting to shoe horn theology.
One reason Mr.M has problems with the two NH and NE being the same is the existence of death in the Isaiah passage in Isa. 65:20 and the absence of death in Rev 21:4. This does appear to be a dilemma for the Preterist position if one takes literally what is spoken of in Rev 21:4. If we start there and try to work backward then we run into a problem. The real problem we then have is what promise of a NH and NE did Peter speak of? The two factors mentioned above, the 2Peter promise and the passing away of the FIRST heavens and earth in Rev 21:1 lay the hermeneutical groundwork as to whether or not these are talking of the same thing. In order to say they are not one must shoehorn texts to fit his schema. The only way to get around the dilemma is to say 2Peter is talking about something past as Puritan John Owen stated it was speaking of A.D. 70. The problem then arises as to where would we then have a basis to say that the physical heavens and earth are going to pass. Some may say we still have the Rev 21:1 passage even if we don’t have 2Peter 3. But then the dilemma again arises about the FIRST heavens and earth passing not the SECOND. Get out that old shoehorn once more. We must then force something into the text to avoid that clear statement of the first heavens and earth passing at the coming of the one in Rev 21. There just is no room for more than one NH and NE arrival in the Scriptures. When that is seen then one will have to be forced to say Rev 21 is also the NH and NE and that then leaves no passages at all to say the heavens and earth are to be dissolved. So that is Mr. M’s problem and why he must shoehorn certain texts to fit his paradigm else he will be forced into a Preterist position which to him is unthinkable.
This reminds us of one famous atheistic scientist who when confronted with the DNA structure starting by chance he agreed was mathematically impossible. But he then said “if is a choice between a mathematical impossibility or a special creator I pick the mathematical impossibility for the other option is unthinkable.” Now of course we are not calling Mr. M an atheist but we are saying that many have the same mindset when confronted with something that threatens what they have always believed is true. Pride has a way of doing that to all of us. Our prayer is that we all have a teachable spirit for the wisdom that is from above is “first teachable.”
The second area of Mr. M’s shoehorn theology is his view concerning who is part of the New Covenant as described by Jeremiah in chapter 31 and 32. In them passages it is quiet clear that all in the NC will “know the Lord” and God will put his fear in their heart that “shall not depart from me.” But in order to stay within his own paradigm Mr. M must say that there will be liars in the NC the very same liars that will be in the lake of fire. The Bible is clear that ALL LIARS will be in the lake of fire so when we asked Mr. M if any of those liars are in the NC he had to resort to an internal/ external NC. By this internal/external covenant we assume he is referring to the position of covenant theology that we reject which states that children of believers are in the external covenant until evidence that they are in it internally or reject it completely and then are out of the covenant completely. If we misstated him on this we apologize but that is our understanding of his position. But even then he has stated that in the internal NC there will be liars that will be the NC. To our knowledge Mr. M embraces Reformed Theology, which we fully agree with on soteriology, so we find it strange that he would make such a statement which is basically saying one can lose their salvation. Now we know that Mr. M does not embrace that but he has shoehorned some aspects of his theology to conform to that without realizing it. His argument is that since there is false doctrine in the NC therefore there are liars in the NC, (since he says all false doctrine is a lie), then we cannot be in the NH and NE where there are no liars.
But the plot thickens. When asked if there were any false doctrine among true believers who are in the NC in saying yes he then has admitted that there cannot be liars in the NC that will be in the lake of fire. Since ALL liars will be in the lake of fire how can there be any liars by the same definition, in the internal NC? We stated that this couldn't be true since that would mean that no one is saved because no true believer has all truth and all have some error. Therefore since ALL LIARS will be in the lake of fire, every one is a liar and will be in the lake of fire. He then resorted to what we will consider as our third shoehorn- progressive sanctification and hints of perfectionism.
Now to be fair to Mr.M he does not outwardly embrace perfectionism but his schema demands an element of it. For he admits all true believers will have false doctrine but through progressive sanctification they eventually are delivered from lying (holding to false doctrine). Now he has not said that in so many words but when asked point blank in a discussion group if there are any liars or unclean people in the internal (to use his term) NC he said yes “deal with progressive sanctification.” Implying by that statement that truthfulness and cleanness come progressively in the life of Christian. Therefore, before the believer dies, he MUST be fully delivered from what is unclean and lying (false doctrine) through this progressive sanctification else how can he enter that city described in Rev 21:27? This is Mr. M’s view and without realizing it he is saying that before one dies one has to reach a point of sanctification that meets that criteria. Never mind that such passages as Zephyr. 3 as we mentioned above and others passages speak of believers as ones will “do no wrong and tell no lies, nor will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouths. . .” Now is this a description of a believer or someone in heaven? He will say this is speaking of positionally and in this we agree. But since one can be positionally clean and without guile found in their mouth then why can’t that be what is spoken of in Rev 21-22? This Mr. M cannot see as being a proper interpretation and we believe it is because of his blindness due to his hatred of what he calls hyperpreterism. So instead of dealing with real issues he creates a straw man and then must shoehorn his theology to make it all fit into his critique of that straw man.
Now to be fair to Mr.M he did say this in a post “God will not look at my lies but rather Christ's life/death. Then, AFTER I am sanctified and glorified will I enter a place where NOTHING unclean can enter it. therefore, I DO NOT ENTER INTO IT UNCLEAN, and YES I would not teach false doctrine there.” What he has a problem with here is that he is saying that it is not until he reaches heaven, the city described in Rev 21-22, will God no longer look on his lies and uncleanness. He has now resorted to another shoehorn. He is now backing away from his other one stating progressive sanctification brings us there. For now he is saying that it is not until we die that God does not look on our sin else his argument of liars being in the present NC falls to pieces. That concept is unscriptural in that it denies many verses that deal with the Christian being complete in Christ and that Christ is our sanctification HERE AND NOW. Mr. M acknowledges that God does not look on any Christ as positionally sinners or liars and that positionally we are sanctified. What he fails to see is that what we have positionally is exactly what we will have in our experience when we enter glory at death. But BEFORE GOD our standing is no different the moment we are regenerate than we will be forever. God looks at us no different then he will forever for it is always and only Christ in us that he sees therefore there are no liars in the NC.
If he really believed that he would see that that is what Rev 21-22 is speaking of when it described the NC. There are no liars or those that are unclean in the NC on earth in time positionally, just as there will be none in glory experimentally. But to avoid the implications of that Mr. M must resort to saying that God does not look at the believer that way now in time. The above quote by him is proof of that since he states that it is not until we die that God does not look on his lies but looks at us in Christ.
One thing that Mr.M would probably point out is that since we are positionally perfect in Christ why does this take place in AD 70 and not at the cross? He asked the question as to why I quote passages speaking of sanctification past which is before AD 70. That is a valid question and beyond the scope of this to get into detail but we will attempt to give a brief response since this will be something that will come up in a response to this article.
In Hebrews 10:1 we read that the sacrifices offered year by year did not “make the comers thereunto perfect.” But in verse 14 we read that Christ has “perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Now Mr. M rightly pointed out that the word sanctified is a present participle therefore he says must speak of an ongoing process. But he forgets two things. First the word “perfected” is a perfect indicative denoting action in the past with its results ongoing. The being made perfect is something that has happened to those who are going through the process of sanctification. The word “sanctified” is a present participle yes, but it is third person denoting action that it is regarding THEM that are being sanctified. The process of sanctifying the people of God is ongoing up to this day.. It is not the individual that is “being sanctified” as if it was a process that goes on in the individual that has already been made perfect. But it is the process that is ongoing for the elect of God as them come into the faith. As they are sanctified at effectual calling, 2Thes 2:14, they are then made perfect.
But is this something that happened after AD 70 or at the cross? This is where the concept of covenantal change must be understood. The New Covenant was made with Israel NOT with Gentiles for they never had an Old Covenant so how can they have a new one? Not even the elect among the Gentiles. The New Covenant was made with Israel- the olive tree- and Gentiles only came into the salvation that is of the Jews through God’s covenant with Israel for they are the root. Elect Gentiles were grafted into the olive tree. But Israel, the olive tree, had to be redeemed out of that covenant at its fulfillment. Just as Israel was redeemed from the bondage of Egypt, a shadow of the cross of Christ, they still had to go through an exodus of 40 years to come into the promised land. The New Exodus of Israel is from the cross to the fulfillment of the Old Covenant 40 years later. Until Israel was redeemed out of the Old Covenant redemption was merely a hope and not a fulfillment. Gentiles that came into the faith did so without the law, yes, but Israel was still under the law and had to be redeemed out of that mode of existence which was consummated at the fulfillment of the Old Covenant at the fall of Jerusalem. Paul said in Galatians that Christ Christ came “to redeem them (Israel) that were under the law, that we(Israel) might receive the adoption as sons. And because ye (elect Gentiles) are sons God sent forth the Spirit of his son into your hearts crying Abba Father” Gal 4:5-6.) When we understand that Gentiles come into the olive tree that had to go through Israel’s New Exodus for the completion of salvation, then we see the significance of the blessings described in the NH and NE that was fully established at the consummation of the Old when it was taken away (Heb 10:9). The blessing described in Rev 21:3 “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God” was secured at the cross yes but did not come to full realization until the new exodus brought the “Israel of God” into the full blessings of the New Covenant described as the New Heavens and New Earth.
Therefore all of the elect of God upon regeneration are in the eyes of God as perfect in Christ since Christ has “appeared a second time without sin unto salvation” so now salvation is a completed reality.
That brief excursion was to explain the significance of AD70 as well as to show why we believe the elect of God are perfect in Christ in the here and now. That is why we can say without contradiction there is no unclean person or liar in the NC as well as the NH and NE. But Mr. M is stuck dealing with the concept, whether he realizes it or not, that when he dies he will be viewed as perfect not by the righteousness of Christ which he was cloth with in time- but the righteousness of himself because he will no longer be a liar in experience. In other words in the “eternal city” according to Mr. M he will be looked at as having imparted righteousness as a result of sanctification rather than imputed righteousness due to Christ and Christ alone. This goes against the Westminster Catechism that Mr. M holds to a high standard that says justification is a “is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardons all their sins, accepts and accounts their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone. “ We realize that this speaks of justification and not sanctification but our standing before God is based upon justification as this quote so succinctly states. Since that is the case as stated in the Larger Catechism then why are those clothed with Christ here and now still viewed as liars and unclean in the NC? His view has somewhat the flavor of Romanism.
Thus are the inconsistencies and shoehorn hermeneutic of Mr. M stated.
What do YOU think ?
Thanks for misrepresenting me, Mike (shoehorn quotes). -Paul
Paul where quoted you I cut and pasted it from other comment section so they are not misquotes. If I mislead then point it out and I most certainly will apologize for misrepresenting you. I went out of my way to make sure I did not. If I failed then I will clarify it.mk
BTW Paul can u answer the question proposed by someone else on 2Peter 3 and the promise of the nh and ne? That might help clarify things. mk
I posted the following comments on the "last installment", and I am reposting them here in the hopes that Paul will cease with his sarcastic, snide tone and start acting like a true follower of Christ. (I wish paragraphs would show up here!) Signed 57chevypreterist
I want to comment that I think the tone of this whole thing is getting way out of hand. It is my observation that Paul’s attitude is less than Christ-like. Paul seems to confuse actions with position. Does one lie by a born again believer automatically make him into a liar that will not enter into the NHNE? Since I am a Calvinist, the answer is emphatically no. Second, all Paul has to do is read and study some of the articles on the preterist archive that have to do with 2 Peter 3 and the New Heavens and New Earth. Typing it here is merely a waste of time since it is obvious he has no interest in doing any of the studying we did to arrive at preterism. Third, if Paul is truly a Christian, then he needs to stop violating the ninth commandment by labeling preterists as “Hymenaens”. If he were intellectually honest, he would read and study Dr. Kelly Birks’ article on this very subject. And, after reading it, he still doesn’t agree, he should then be Christ-like and stop with the name calling. Fourth, he was referring to some posts on the Puritan Board website, where two preterists engaged in cyber space debate with Paul and some other folks who insist that we are heretics. The springboard there was this same “Transcentental Argument” article he posted here. Part 1:
I find that Paul and the other brothers on that board have a very immature and contentious attitude in how they treated two preterists that posted on there. Granted the preterists should not have posted there to begin with, as they did not adhere to the Puritan Board’s rules for posting, but that does not excuse Paul’s and the others’ sinful behavior. Galatians 5 and 6 makes it CLEAR that those who are spiritual are to restore heretics (so accused by Paul and Company) in a gentle manner (Gal. 5:20 and 6:1). It also states that those who practice the works of the flesh such as contentions (such as Paul and Company) shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19). I would also remind Paul that if you do not forgive others, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you. The preterist that lied to get onto the Puritan Board admitted as much and asked to be forgiven; instead he was shot down by Paul and Company. Paul and Company’s fruit of the Spirit is missing love, peace, and gentleness for preterists with whom they disagree. It is hurtful to the body of Christ and must grieve the Holy Spirit. Paul, it’s time for you to remove the plank from your own eye. Signed 57chevypreterist
To 57Chevy, MK here. It seems to me that Paul is not responding anymore. I do not want to judge his motives but it is my guess he is dodging the question propose to him on 2peter 3 and the promise of NH and NE. Or he is trying to come up with an answer. We will see. If the former is true we wont see him on here if the latter is he will come up with an answer hopefully not a shoehorn answer. mk
Mike: Thanks for responding. Keep up the good work in responding/debating. There will come a point in time where they will throw up their hands and go away. I just wish they'd go away and do some serious bible study regarding preterism (instead of just slinging mud) then come back and seriously discuss. Honestly, do they think we born-again believers just woke up one day and decided to embrace heresy (to paraphrase another preterist whose name escapes me right now)? Or are we just too stupid and stiff-necked to realize that the NH and NE are a literal, future event. Bryan(57chevypreterist)
I have to give Paul and Company one credit in that on their Puritan Board (Part 2 link above) they went ahead and removed their very offensive picture of someone being tortured on a rack. They replaced it with a picture of a baby with glasses ("William Wallace" perhaps?). So maybe there's hope for them yet! [Signed] 57chevypreterist
To: 57Chevy, can you contact via email or leave ur email address here? You can get me through the link to my website Pristine Grace at the top of the article. mk
Interesting concept Mike -shoehorn theology- and I might add you were more gracious that many of your opponents have been towards preterism. James P
Hello all, H.L. James here. I've posted a new article at www.AD70.com called "The Hole in Paul Manata's Donut (Why the TAAHP is Dead)," which goes over in detail how Paul Manata, by certain of his own admissions and in his own words, has refuted his own argument. Here is the link: http://www.ad70.com/writing/articles/h_l_james/manata_donut.html
Well it looks old Paul damann is not going to respond any more. I guess he doesnt plan to respond to HL James's article either. Can't say as I blame him seeing his argument has been repeatedly refuted. HEE HAW HEE HAW.......................
I wonder if Paul offended by me asking him the question about the passage in 2Peter. He has chose not to respond. That is strange. Oh well so it goes. Miquel Santa Maria
Well Miquel I am not sure why Paul has chosen to avoid us other than he has no response. He said he would answer you after I answered him clearly saying that ALL LIARS will be in lake of fire as NO LIARS are or will be in the New Covenant. HL's article is good and shows the inconsistencies of those that hold to the postmil in that they take some timing texts as imminient but avoid the clear connection between those verses directly connected with the timing. Well I guess I will proceed in working on installment # 4 in my response to him even if he not being intellectually honest and answering the questions. But then again those I have encountered on Paltalk that pointed out his artcile never responded to my article at all. They either didnt read it or after reading it had no answered to the questions proposed in my first refutation. One particular man named Terry was real bold in pointing out Paul article and how it completely refutes preterism but when I challenged him to write a refutation of my arguments in my first article and send it to me I havent heard from him yet. They seem to all be the same they want to ask questions but refuse to respond to our questions. mk
Date: 24 Oct 2007
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996