BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
David S. Clark -The Message From Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation (1921) "This early twentieth-century Postmillennial commentary on the Book of Revelation, written by the father of theologian Gordon Clark, offers an easy-to-read alternative to the popular Pre-millennial/Dispensational views of the best-selling Scofield Reference Bible and a multitude of other dissertations on end-time prophecy that litter the shelves of Christian bookstores. "
The Braying of Heretics, or, The Heresies of Bray
By P. Andrew Sandlin
In his booklet The Rapture of Christians, Southern Baptist evangelist John Bray unambiguously endorses the Hymenaen ("consistent preterist") heresy: the denial of the bodily, physical return of Christ and the bodily, physical resurrection of the saints.
I document this charge below. He holds that the
Second Advent occurred on or about A. D. 70, and that the resurrection of the saints occurs at their death. In other words, he denies the physical return of Christ to earth in power and glory as well as the physical resurrection of the Christian. (What Bray really supports is not a resurrection, but a replacement.)
In addition, it is an objective, historical religion whose cardinal tenets one cannot deny without abandoning the religion itself. For instance, one may claim he is a Christian, enjoying a relationship with Jesus Christ; but if he denies the orthodox Trinity, his claims ring hollow. The doctrines of Christ's physical return and believers' physical resurrection are no less core components of Christianity than the doctrine of the Trinity. These doctrines are jettisoned, or seriously redefined, by the Hymenaen heresy.
In his book The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future, C. Jonathin Seraiah refutes this heresy exegetically. This book, endorsed by R. C. Sproul, Jr.;
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.; Richard Pratt; and this writer, is available from Canon Press, www.canonpress.org .
Note carefully that the re-definition of the Second Advent, to Bray's way of thinking, necessitates the re-definition of "the resurrection and judgment."
This, of course, is true of all Hymenaens. (Consider, but not too carefully, Ed Stevens' paper, as well as the Leonards' book, on this subject.)
Further, Bray asserts that the resurrection body is the body the saint receives at death, not a true resurrection at all:
He contends on page 17 that the only resurrection body is the body the saint receives at death. No one, of course, holds that believers' bodies presently in graves have been resurrected; that would be the classic oxymoron. Therefore, like all other Hymenaens, Bray must attack the physical resurrection of believers. If the great resurrection has already occurred, and if believers' bodies are still in the graves, then this, whatever it is, is not a resurrection.
I have not read one orthodox exegete who identifies the "house" of 2 Corinthians 5:1 as a replacement for the resurrection body, as Bray and other heretics do. Some, like Calvin, admit it may refer to "a state of blessed immortality, which awaits believers after death, or the incorruptible and glorious body, such as it will be after the resurrection." It is either the believer's body resurrected and immortalized at the end of history, or a description of the intermediate state. It is not a substitute for the resurrection, Bray's views notwithstanding.
Bray, in short, is a "consistent preterist," i.e., heretical Hymenaen. This is demonstrable. There is no dispute about this.
What do YOU think ?
Thanks for your opinions and comments about brother Bray. However,I donot find them compeling enought to overcome all the obstickles of the argument. To be objective in understanding the scripture as to make any sence at all , we must seek to interpret it in the proper time frame. As far as I can see,this is what John Bray is trying to do. To critize his ideas without other options as to understanding the scriptures is not right. Of course,orthdox Christianity does not all concure with his findings,(preterism) but is time I believe it is the only thing that adds up. ><> Dean
Why was this trash allowed on this website? Sandlin obviously doesn't have a clue.
True, the overwhelming tradition of orthodox Christianity posits a future final visible ressurection and judgement-atleast from 71ad to the mid 100's -(when the first non-Preterist writings began to surface. But New Testament Scriptures themselves can easily be filtered through Preterist concepts. I take exception with the authors assertion that Preterism's advocates lack credentials; for the most part, they are every bit as credentialed, I dare say, as the author. Further, Preterism has difinitive linguistic and cultural proofs derived from the original languages of both the OT and NT (if one simply wishes to limit the search to Scriptures Alone). The Preterist interpretations have the advantage of clearing up the so called "hard sayings" in the Bible, most of which in reality are only "hard" because they must be filtered through the preconceptions of traditional futurist doctrines, which, of necessity, strain the normal and more literal exegesis of same - the same problem encountered in Premillennial Dispensationalism.
Mr. Sandlin. In Your arrogance and traditional dogmatism you are blinded to the realities within scripture of the nature of the ressurection and it's timing. IE: concerning the nature :scripture says "..,we are raised a "SPIRITUAL" body." IE: concerning the timing:scripture again testifies " .., when the last enemy is destroyed(death) the son will hand the kingdom back to the Father..,". The promise of ressurection was for the old covenant saints and martyrs up until 70 A.D.Those dead were spiritually raised from the grave, Those still alive were ensured their salvation in the heavenlies by the "ESTABLISHMENT " of the new covenant, which BTW ,could not happen until the old was taken out of the way. The new covenant posesses a better promise for those after 70 A.D. "WE WILL NEVER DIE". Don't mean to burst your self inflated bubble , but you need to study with God's spirit and not your own. thanks for your time
John L. Bray is not teaching heresy regarding the resurrection. When Scripture is compared with Scripture it will be seen that the soul of the believer is resurrected and then after it is resurrected the soul is united with a new body which was prepared in heaven. Even though the soul is as mortal as the body it is, nonetheless, a distinct entity from the body. The resurrection of the Lord is set as a pattern and does not necessarily mean that the details in the process of our resurrection will be exactly the same. The Book of Corinthians says that we have an eternal (not temporary) body reserved for us in heaven. That was not the case with our Lord but the end result is the same for the Lord and His people - a new body.
We will be raised with "spiritual bodies." This means that the body will be animated by the Spirit, not that the body will be made of spirit. I recommend reading The Resurrection of the Son of God by N. T. Wright to understand what I Corinthians 15 means by "spiritual body."
mr. sandlin john bray doesen't deny anything. we preterist agree with jesus, and the prophets that all these things were fullfilled when they said it was going to be fullfilled in that generation not ours.
Please publish a defense of Bray in full! Sandlin is no more an "authority" on orthodoxy than the popes who excommunicated the Protestant Reformers! He will discover this at his personal meeting with the Lord, to be sure. PAUL RICHARD STRANGE SR
TDD: Due to Mr. Bray's request, none of his works are hosted at this site.. But I'll be most happy to post any defense someone would care to submit.
Date: 20 Feb 2010
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996