Hyper Preterism: Theology on Steroids

On this weeks podcast I talk about Pastor Ed Young as well as talk about some of the beliefs of those adhering to Hyper-Preterism by using quotes from a program named New Covenant Eyes.

Right click the link below and select “save as” to download the program to a portable device or simply double click the link to listen from an on site audio player.

hyper preterism theology on steroids

New Covenant Eyes Podcast from 1-3-2010

http://blog.messiahreformed.com/2010/01/04/new-covenant-eyes-talk-show-january-3-2010.aspx

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Hyper Preterism: Theology on Steroids

  1. Hi Everyone,

    Many of you have written stating you were or are having trouble listening to the podcast. The site hosting the podcast was down for a period of time so I have placed the MP3 you can download up;

    [audio src="https://phillyflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/hyper-preterism-theology-on-steroids.mp3" /]

    Thanks,

    Phil

  2. Good podcast Phil. Especially the part about how hyper preterism claims our salvation isn’t by works anymore because of AD70. I realize the HP would deny it, but this does take away from the cross.

    Sharon

    • Hi,

      I just looked at it and one thing I noticed is that Mr.Sibbet didn’t even give a correct link to the podcast.

      Then he begins with an insult and misrepresents nearly everything I said which is probably why he didn’t offer a link in the first place.

      I deal with the misrepresentations later on today if I have time.

      One thing? Why do these people ALWAYS bring up my tennis?

      Phil

      • Never mentioned your tennis. I addressed the link issue in a response to your audio comments to my post.
        ———————————————————————————
        Edit: I’ve added a response Mr. Sibbit left at the podbean site below

        ——————————————————————————–

        Phil,

        It was not my intention to direct the link to anywhere other that to the audio. That being said, I have tested it again and got to the audio through the link. Or, I’m still lying. On the podcast archives page, at the top of the left column is a “Personal Life Media Player” widget. While this podcast was not visible at first, I scrolled to the top of the list and there it was. It is still there as of right now, and it plays. You are wrong, that is exactly where I got it after listening on itunes. It’s still there. I don’t know how to link to something in itunes, so I found a link where I could. If you would like me to link to another place just let me know, as I believe you should have done before ascribing poor motives to something that wasn’t even an error. Unless of course I’m the only one who can see and hear it where it’s linked, or still lying.

        You said you have rebutted most of my statements. Where please? I’ll look more after I’ve sent this but if you would help me find it that would be great.

        The pertinent part of my statement quoted would be: “I have a feeling this would be also be a straw man.” and the second time you quoted me wrong as saying, “If he said it, I would think it would mean….” What I said was, “I think I would understand him to mean…” What Alan means and what I understand him to mean are two different things.

        To the first, I think you misunderstood what I meant by “if he said it.” What I meant and what could have been charitably read was: What he said could carry a meaning other that what you interpreted. Meaning: Although he said the words, they could carry a different or fuller meaning that what you characterized. Even different or fuller than you have expounded here in this audio. I’m not sure yet. This is why I meant this may be another straw man in your original podcast. It may be depending on what Alan meant and what you mean in reply.

        To the second, I may misunderstand Alan or not. I was simply trying to give the statement the charity it deserves until I have more evidence. The sole statement played by you could carry the meaning I gave it in my post. Could it not? Now, in light of your additional airing of some more sentences, the question becomes: What did Alan mean by FP/HP (take your pick) makes the gospel possible? You doubt I listened to the podcast, I assure you I have and I’ve listened to it again. I’ll pick it apart later with the same charitable ear I gave it the first three times. For now, the statement played by you could be understood many ways. Yes, as I said, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the speaker till I understand clearly. When I have questions I ask him for clarification.

        1.)The good news is only good news to the hearer if they believe it. 2.)The hearer should put the claims of the presentation against scripture. 3.)You, and everyone think they present it correctly from scripture. Preterists are no different than you or any denomination, or cult for that matter. 4.)If the hearer hears the same contradictions that preterists point out and those contradictions are inherent in a futurist presentation and comport with preterists claims. Then: 5.)Conclusion 1: The good news of futurism isn’t good news after all, as it would be self contradictory and properly not believed. 6.)Conclusion 2: The good news presented in a preterist framework would be the only truly good news, if preterism is right and futurism is wrong.

        Notice I said “to the hearer.” Yes, there are a lot of if’s in the proposition. I probably could have presented the syllogism better too. Can you see what I’m saying though? Is the proposition logically valid? Could this be what Alan meant? I believe this should be established before dealing with the theology in order to prevent misunderstanding. “Many people are saved through much bad theology.” John Piper. I think people can have a wrong understanding of some aspects of scripture and still know Christ. I don’t think Alan would deny that.

        I think what the overall idea means is: if you apply futurist theology to scripture there are contradictions about things like: Are we still under law i.e. still in our sins. Are we really forgiven yet. (don’t ignore the yet) Do we really go to be with Christ when we die. On and on the questions come. This is of course all from a preterist perspective. It doesn’t mean we don’t come to the same conclusions as many futurists. We just come there by a different route and think futurists theological conclusions are contradictory with themselves and scripture in some areas.

        I don’t want to argue the theology as I’m sure I’m not qualified. (I’m not being sarcastic by that either.) Logically though, I can understand this point, if this is what Alan meant. And, I think it could be what he meant. If so it would be no different than you saying, the gospel is not possible, presented from a Mormon (pick your cult) framework, because it is inconsistent with itself and contradictory to scripture.

        This is an example of the charitable ear I try to give everyone, that I don’t see you giving to preterists or what ever label you wish to use. In doing so, I think you risk the logical errors I pointed out in my post. In the errors your argument falls flat and benefits no one. Maybe you plan to address the issues more logically later. I don’t know. You didn’t say. From my view you (possibly) haven’t yet even understood their positions. Of course I could be wrong and you do understand. If so then, I think you should deal with the issues, in context, demonstrating you understand what Alan and Jeremy are saying, before rebutting. This is not supposed to be political rhetoric but rather seeking to understand and correct, in that order.

        Still listening (for some reason) Curtis

        • Just noticed I could follow some of my last advice about rhetoric, but I was posting at a preterist site where the rhetoric looks much like what I see here only from the other side.

        • Hello;

          Curtis;

          It was not my intention to direct the link to anywhere other that to the audio. That being said, I have tested it again and got to the audio through the link. Or, I’m still lying. On the podcast archives page, at the top of the left column is a “Personal Life Media Player” widget. While this podcast was not visible at first, I scrolled to the top of the list and there it was. It is still there as of right now, and it plays. You are wrong, that is exactly where I got it after listening on itunes. It’s still there. I don’t know how to link to something in itunes, so I found a link where I could. If you would like me to link to another place just let me know, as I believe you should have done before ascribing poor motives to something that wasn’t even an error. Unless of course I’m the only one who can see and hear it where it’s linked, or still lying.

          That made it much more clearer. Go to this page (on a site you now claim you didn’t know existed until today) and then voila! How would those who aren’t familiar with my podcasts to know which one you were even talking about as you didn’t even state the NAME of the podcast in your critique and you want to talk logic and reason?

          You said you have rebutted most of my statements. Where please? I’ll look more after I’ve sent this but if you would help me find it that would be great.

          https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/hyper-preterism-theology-on-steroids/comment-page-1/#comment-11311

          I also posted this link at the following location;

          http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4226#comment-7265

          I’ll leave it there and give you a chance to catch up so we don’t wind up talking past one another.

        • Thanks again for the charity. I was referring to this blog. I found and began downloading your podcasts on itunes having never been here before. As I explained I searched for the audio to link to and linked the first one I found. I didn’t then look around your site to know this blog was here. Give a guy a break. I fixed the links, I added more, the one I gave is still there and it still works and I came here for discussion.

        • Hi Curtis,

          The link you gave is part of this “blog”……and you haven’t discussed anything yet…..and you still haven’t responded to my rebuttal from February 16.

          Phil

        • I misstated once “site” for “page” and now the “page” I linked to was not a “page” but a “blog” instead.

          I’m going to try to be carfull and precise here but bear in mind I’m no net expert either.
          1. A site is represented by a root domain name. 2. A page is an html document on a site.
          3. A blog is a type of html page on a site or is the part of that page that contains articles etc.
          This article/blog/page is certainly not what I linked to. This article/blog/page is on the same site that contains the page I linked to, that I’ll grant.

          wordpress.com is the root site. phillyflash.wordpress.com is the sub-domain (or sub-site)
          The podcast I linked to is stored on the media7.podbean.com domain/site and plays through the archives page of this sub-domain. I did not link to this blog page (…hyper-preterism-theology-on-steriods….) Further, I did not link to a page containing a blog at all, if you define a blog as an article, which it technically and properly is. The site that contains a blog page is sometimes called a blog site, or a blog page, but it is technically wrong to call an html document/page a blog. Perfectly good slang for day to day conversation but bad jargon for establishing motives.

          Wasn’t that all rather silly too. I’ll quit trying to defend my moral character now as it seems useless and I’m not concerned with Phil’s impression of it anyway. Now maybe I’ll have time to address his rebuttal.

        • Lastly, according to the date and time of your reply in this thread, and the date and time of my other comments here (on this page,) and depending on how you define “discussion”:

          “and you haven’t discussed anything yet” may just be inaccurate. Maybe you think my comments previous to 2/19/2010 at 4:02am, do not qualify as participating in discussion. I don’t know. There are many things you say that are puzzling to me. Maybe I’m just not all that smart. Could be.

        • Hi Curtis,

          This is an example of the charitable ear I try to give everyone, that I don’t see you giving to preterists or what ever label you wish to use. In doing so, I think you risk the logical errors I pointed out in my post. In the errors your argument falls flat and benefits no one. Maybe you plan to address the issues more logically later. I don’t know. You didn’t say. From my view you (possibly) haven’t yet even understood their positions. Of course I could be wrong and you do understand. If so then, I think you should deal with the issues, in context, demonstrating you understand what Alan and Jeremy are saying, before rebutting. This is not supposed to be political rhetoric but rather seeking to understand and correct, in that order.

          Maybe you need to look a little harder Curtis. Try this link below;

          https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/house-divided-by-david-green/

          I think I was very charitable…..or perhaps this link below;

          https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/what-biblical-preterists-affirm-by-samuel-m-frost-mar/

          Did you catch who wrote that article which is still up and running on this site? Why, it was none other then Hyper Preterist Sam Frost….still think I don’t know what Hyper Preterists believe or that I haven’t been charitable Curtis?

          For an outstanding example of charity;

          Yes, every now and then when someone throws it sooo slow and over the center of the plate, it makes me feel a good to know that even I can make contact. That doesn’t say much for the pitcher though.

          Why, that was you patting yourself on the back and belittling me right? I’m the pitcher, right?

          http://newcovenanteyes.ning.com/profiles/blogs/phil-naessens-on-new-covenant?xg_source=activity&id=3980344%3ABlogPost%3A1110&page=2#comments

          I’d say you have a much higher opinion of yourself then you should huh?

          Isaiah 5:21

          Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.

          Proverbs 26:12

          Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

          Have a nice day!

          Phil

        • In the first statement you quoted above I was only referencing the podcast I was critiquing. Further note, I said, “I try,” I never said I was perfect.

          I will re-listen to the House Divided review podcast. However the second link to Sam’s article has no comment by you other than the intro that I could find. And again the charity was lost on me in the HP on Steroids poscast as far as I can see, which is what I commented on in my post.

          Yes, that was me patting me on the back. Good eye pitcher. They do need to be thrown slow and over the center of the plate for me and you did that just fine. As I said in a reply below, my rhetorical challenge in the post was about the logical intelligence of the positions I dealt with. Not your morality. That is where I’m thanking you for the charity, sarcastically. Not for being charitable to my propositions. I neither ask for or expect that.
          Or, is an ignorant and academically untrained man automatically immoral too? Is being uncharitable about someones illogical propositions being uncharitable to their morality?

          Isa 5:21 What? Do you find yourself foolish and clumsy and therefore no woe and more hope to you?

          Lastly, I came here. You said it was too confusing to jump around to a lot of different sites (I’ll add pages to the list.) I’ll not jump from here either.

        • Note also in my quote I said, “from my view you (possibly) haven’t yet even understood….” Allowing Sam to post an article and giving no comment about it on that page (that I could find) does not demonstrate understanding of the view in the article and I’ll listen to the linked podcast again tonight. Don’t don’t miss the “possibly.” That’s called intellectual generosity. I’ll not search the world over and read everything of yours I can find, because (and again,) I was commenting on the HP on Steroids audio, not all of your interaction with HPs everywhere in the world at all times. Focus man focus.

        • Curtis,

          You are a trip. I’ve read ALL three of Sam’s books Curtis. I’m reading Duncan MacKenzies book now. I know what HP believes but I’m starting to think you might not. Just because no one, including me commented on Sam’s article doesn’t mean we don’t understand what he wrote. There are other postings on this site where PLENTY of questions were asked by me and answered by various members of the HP community. I’ve read their works on the various sites Curtis and I’ve been very gracious and charitable……ask people like John Scargy, Jeff Vaughn, Tami Jelinek, Jason Bradfield, Sam Frost etc……

          Phil

        • Good for you. The podcast I heard sure doesn’t reflect it. That is,….the podcast I was commenting on. The only thing I was commenting on. Not other things. Just the podcast I was critiquing. Get it!?

          The podcast I commented on was the root of all my comments. I’m not interested if or care how much you know or where all your other knowledge and wisdom are posted. This thread starts about a single podcast. It was a single podcast I commented on.

          Have I made clear yet what I was and am commenting on!? Or, would you like to continue to expand the context so that we never have time to discuss the podcast you invited me here about, and/or my comments on it. I’ll keep piddling with this till I’m bored or we finally get to the topic at hand. Which in case you forgot, you can look up and see it in the address bar or linked below.

          https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/hyper-preterism-theology-on-steroids/

        • Curtis,

          It’s YOU who keeps nattering on and on about what I don’t understand……and it’s been six days now since I responded to your insults critique. The only one preventing you from responding is YOU……..

          Phil

    • I would like to thank Mr. Curtis Sibbet for his recent critique of my most recent podcast Hyper-Preterism: Theology on Steroids. At least he listened to the podcast. I just wish he would have offered his readers the same opportunity by at least offering a link to the actual podcast rather then linking to the archives of the Theology Today Apologetic Ministries Podcast.

      Mr. Sibbet,

      He begins with empiricism. Where they there (at the resurrection?) Did they see it? Brilliant argument! He also challenges credentials because we all know if you don’t have a degree you don’t know anything. Absolute genius! I suppose if Alan and crew do, then it’s probably not the right ones. So, I guess we have to move on to 2000 years of church history can’t be wrong. Yep, going there next.

      Notice the insulting tone and mockery? That’s the predominant theme throughout this critique. My questions were sincere. Were you there? If you weren’t how do you know all was fulfilled in AD70? Mr. Dufrende (sp?) didn’t offer a reason for the hope that lies within him (1Peter3:15) he simply stated “we preterists know all was fulfilled in AD70 which led to my questions.

      Mr. Sibbet,

      Next Phil moves to the letter of Clement to the Corinthians chapter 24. Clement (who must have good enough credentials for Phil) tells us through Phil that nature teaches us about a future resurrection, and reminds us of his past treatment on first fruits. Clement uses morning resurrecting from the night, then the life of a plant from a seed. That’s one strange plant. Christ was the first fruit and the rest of the harvest is 2000 years and counting to yet be harvested.

      The point I was making was St. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, written post AD70 stated their will be a future bodily resurrection of the believers. Clement’s epistle was littered with a futuristic tone regarding this future bodily resurrection. As far as a “past treatment” is concerned, I dealt with this issue far more in depth at the link below this paragraph. Unfortunately Mr. Sibbet failed to source this past treatment as well.

      http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2010/01/17/the-believers-bodily-resurrection/

      Mr. Sibbet,

      Phil then tells me I deny our bodily resurrection but see it as spiritual. I guess a soma must have flesh, bone and (depending on who you talk to) blood. This point he either doesn’t get or just disagrees with. Again, those fruits are way late to be in the same harvest with Christ (the first fruit) while the spiritual body (soma) is mature and producing more fruit every day, preterist or not. Now, I know that the resurrection of the “dead ones,” is understood differently by many. However, it is not just FP’s who see it as spiritual, but then again the others aren’t preterists so I guess their okay.

      All of the above can be heard in detail at the above link. Mr. Sibbet mentions “others” yet fails to state who those “others” actually are where my podcast dealt strictly with what Hyper Preterists believe. Perhaps that is why I titled the podcast Hyper Preterism: Theology on Steroids? I’ll try to be clearer next time.

      http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2010/01/17/the-believers-bodily-resurrection/

      Mr. Sibbet,

      Now we use the words “we know” because we have to convince skeptics and/or unsuspecting non-thinkers. Not because we know from scripture or anything like that. Its just a mind game. If we only said “we think,” or “we believe” then no one would ever believe us, or I guess the bible either. Maybe we should get better cool-aid for the meetings so we can stop saying “we know.”

      Very humerous but again Mr. Sibbet has missed the point. There’s no way he could possibly know that all was fulfilled in AD70, a point I repeatedly made throughout that podcast.

      Mr. Sibbet

      Then the claim comes from Paul to the Corinthians, that the resurrection is future. Duh, that’s not much of a refutation if he knows (oops that word again) that Paul wrote before 70AD. Nonetheless “hyper preterism” must deny that resurrection because he believes (knows) that it is physical. No FP denies that the resurrection is future to Paul’s letter. No, FP denies that there was and is a soma that was resurrected. Then we have to attack Jeremy Defrehn’s credentials again or Alan’s, Phil just says “he.”

      I also used one example of a writer post AD70 who also believed the resurrection of the believer was a future occurance who happened to be with Paul and survived after AD70. It was clear I was referring to Mr. Defrehn’s (sp?) statement as that was the one I played. Again, the link below shares my position in quite detail regarding why I believe in a future bodily resurrection of the believer.

      http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2010/01/17/the-believers-bodily-resurrection/

      Mr. Sibbet,

      “You cannot find one scripture that demands that Christ return in AD70.” He is correct, for once! But, unfortunately, that is irrelevant. The bible doesn’t mention AD70. But the hundreds of “mello” soon, at hand, last day, last hour, etc…, time text passages must be denied by Phil to deny the 70AD return of Christ. Which is the greater light? The time texts? or The nature of the return and the resurrection? People have been arguing over the nature of the later for thousands of years. Only in the past few hundred has there been any serious dealing with the time texts, as they are pretty clear, shall we say brighter light. After he claims that we cannot find the scripture that demands AD70, he then tells us all we can do is interpret the scripture and come up with that on our own. Yes….who is our Jim Jones anyway? If we have none then we must each be one according to Phil. Or, maybe, we are standing on the shoulders of great men just like he is. Ya think!!??

      I don’t deny the “time texts” Mr. Sibbet. I questioned why no credible scholar in the last 2000 years has reached the conclusions that Hyper Preterism has come to which demands these conclusions must be reached through “private interpretation”. I never mentioned Jim Jones nor did I compare anyone in Hyper Preterism past present or future with Jones. This a fallacious statement by Mr. Sibbet.

      Mr. Sibbet;

      Some more stuff about “knowing” and credentials again….then he adds the ole, he has never heard this in a church or seminar. Wheww, glad he isn’t a brain surgeon, cause I doubt if the churches or seminars he’s been to talk about that either, so brain surgery must not happen or is unbiblical.

      This is absolutely ridiculous and totally out of context. What I said was I had never heard these conclusions at any conference or church that I had attended or spoken at. The point was missed again which isn’t surprising.

      Mr. Sibbet,

      Then we move on to some more historical notables. John Calvin, CH Spurgeon, John Piper etc…, don’t teach these things. That’s true too, as far as it goes. Once again however, he then goes on to say that none of these men even came close to believing these things. Now, he’s stepped in it again. Many of the great shoulders he and we stand on have viewed different aspects of preterism as we do. Some of them are more that close to FP.

      What I said was these men never came close to believing these things or using the verbiage that Mr. Dufrends employs.

      Mr. Sibbit;

      Next error. He can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the bible says “all these things weren’t fulfilled” and that “we (he) knows” based on 1Cor 15 that there weren’t any “bodies” coming out of the grave in 70AD. To keep with Phil’s standard: how does he “know” this? Was Phil there? Of course, I would disagree on the nature of resurrection in 1Cor 15, but I can’t “know” as I’m sure I’m not qualified. And, when looking for the text that denies the fulfillment: he provides nothing other than empiricism based on a letter written before 70AD.

      Why, I know this because the bible is SPECIFIC about a future bodily resurrection of the believer. I once again refer to the podcast below and in the podcast Mr. Sibbet is critiqing I refered to a 1st century writer who was with Paul and survived AD70 who also taught a future bodily return of the believer.

      http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2010/01/17/the-believers-bodily-resurrection/

      Mr. Sibbit;

      Alan Bondar is in his cross hairs next. He plays a quote about being forgiven in Christ and how that means we don’t need to ask Him to forgive our errors anymore, as we have already been forgiven. Alan goes on to talk about John Piper’s Christian Hedonism for the rest of the clip. Phil equates asking to be forgiven by others with asking to be forgiven by God, in order to please them and Him. I don’t think Alan would say we shouldn’t apologize to people when we have wronged or hurt them. However, what is the biblical evidence that we are to still apologize to the God who has already forgiven us and remembers that sin no more. Are we to remind Him of what He forgot, so that we can apologize for what He doesn’t rember? And, this will please Him? Then he goes on to say that he “knows” of no one who would ever say those types of things. I think he was speaking of the asking to be forgiven part with “those types of things.” I believe I have heard this from futurists and preterists before, and I’ll let others fill in that gap. I’ll also let the reader decide if Phil is claiming that Alan believes he does not sin, thereby calling God a liar: as in 1 John 1:9-10.

      I think Mr. Sibbet should listen to the podcast again because he missed the point. John was writing to believers. John wasn’t talking about past sins. He exorted them to ask for forgiveness for their daily sins. To say that we shouldn’t ask forgiveness isn’t biblical which is what I stated on the podcast. I also stated I have never heard anyone credible make a statement such as this.

      http://theologytoday.podbean.com/2010/02/11/hyper-preterism-theology-on-steroids/

      Mr. Sibbit;

      After some more fluff, Phil backtracks on the idea that no historical bible scholars have “came close to believing these things” by saying that preterists have added onto what those men wrote. He says this almost as if that would be a sin like what was warned of in Rev. Nonetheless the backtracking is there. Which is it? Either they have said things close to our positions that we agree with, or not?

      Dave Green admits to “adding” to the reformed view of Justification on this site which was the impetus for this podcast as I stated in the beginning of the podcast. And I clearly stated that while men like Green (who I didn’t name) believed in the reformed views they have added to this by claiming all was consumated in AD70.

      https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/the-greening-of-eschatology-aka-the-green-house-on-straw-hill-by-sharon-nichols/comment-page-1/#comment-11242

      Mr. Sibbet,

      Back to Jeremy now, and being forgiven. All Jeremy said was we have forgiveness of our sins now and we (as Christians) have had it since 70AD. Phil disagrees, I guess. He paraphrases Jeremy by saying “we couldn’t get forgiveness of our sins until The Parousia.” Phil then drags out the “it is finished” from the cross. He doesn’t say what “it” was, but apparently Phil “knows” that “it” was all the work of forgiveness that would ever be done. Jeremy may believe that no one was forgiven before the Parousia in 70AD, but that’s not what he said. Can you say straw man!

      The bible disagrees with Jeremy because our sins were forgiven at the cross and to add to that by making it conditional based on a AD70 parousia is bad theology. I was merely correcting bad theology by using the mans own words which is hardly considered a strawman.

      Mr. Sibbit;

      Back to Alan. He plays quotes till this one. Maybe he couldn’t find one that said exactly this so he decided to say it rather than play Alan’s actual words. He claims Alan has said that no one can understand the gospel without the light of full preterism. I have a feeling this would also be a straw man. If he said it, I think I would understand him to mean, have a full understanding, or the best understanding. Not, have no understanding at all. As Phil said Alan was arrogant, it would also be arrogant to believe he knows what Alan meant by that statement without a full quote from him on the subject. Now that he has established his straw man he knocks it down with the charge of heresy, even though he doesn’t use the word.

      Perhaps this is why I linked to the New Covenant Eyes podcast? It’s too bad Mr. Sibbit didn’t offer me the same courtesy. I do have the whole quote and I will air this in a future podcast as I intend on highlighting a few more concerns I have with Mr. Bondar’s statements on that particular program.

      Mr. Sibbit;

      Lastly, we move on to credentials again. Have these guys ever made a mistake? How could they “know?” Paul never came close to these things (preterism) in what he taught. soon, at hand, the last hour etc.. etc… All of these references to “knowing” and knowledge could be a veiled reference to epistemology but he never goes there, so I won’t. Then Phil finishes with the good ole standard: 2000 years of church history couldn’t be wrong, so that’s where I’ll finish. Yes, it could have, because they said they had been and could be! NUFF SAID!

      What I stated was 2000 years of scholarship never came to these conclusions. Why Mr. Sibbit continually puts words in my mouth and twists other statements is a mystery to me but perhaps this could be the reason why he didn’t link to the podcast in the first place.

      Mr. Sibbet and others are free to interact at this site if they’d like as I won’t be responding to what they say anywhere else but here.

  3. Phil,

    I loved this one following comment,

    “Curtis: “He begins with empiricism. Where they there (at the resurrection?) Did they see it? Brilliant argument!”

    Hal: Yes, brilliant. Was Phil there, did Phil see it? I guess Phil can’t comment on it since he was not. LOL!”

    Guess it never occurred to this guys that was the Apostle Paul’s argument, “13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.”

  4. Mr. Sibbet,

    Back to Jeremy now, and being forgiven. All Jeremy said was we have forgiveness of our sins now and we (as Christians) have had it since 70AD.

    Now see, it is comments like this which cause me such alarm. To say we didn’t have forgiveness of sins until AD70 is so wrong! Yet, if we attribute this view to them and write against it, we are called on the carpet for not understanding or misrepresenting them! Which is it? In the HP view, are they forgiven through Jesus Christ on the cross or AD70? Or, by some odd twist of things, is it both? Can one be partially forgiven at one point, then forgiven in full later?

    Sharon

    • Hi,

      That’s the million dollar question but according to Alan Bondar us non Hyper Preterists can’t understand the Gospel anyways, unless I built a strawman and Bondar didn’t really say this:-)

      Phil

    • Please note, I said that was all he said. I didn’t interpret what he meant. Haven’t we had forgiveness since 70AD? I didn’t even say if I agreed or not. Just pointed out what he did say.

      • Hi,

        Here’s what you had to say;

        Jeremy may believe that no one was forgiven before the Parousia in 70AD, but that’s not what he said. Can you say straw man!

        That is what Jeremy said Curtis. I didn’t create a straw man there or anywhere else. Nice try though.

        Phil

        • You couldn’t possibly create a straw man with just a quote. It was when you restated his position as, “we couldn’t get forgiveness of our sins until the Parousia.” This he did not say. This interprets what Jeremy said without it being a necessary conclusion from his statement or confirmation from him that that was what he meant. It was your characterization of his statement you spoke against not his statement it’s self. That is the very definition of a straw man.

          Jeremy may very well have meant what you said. That is irrelevant. He didn’t say it and your conclusion wasn’t necessary. What he said was, “we have forgiveness of our sins now and we have had it since 70AD.” What in that requires your interpretation that I quoted above by necessity? That answer I would need to retract the straw man charge. It’s simple logic.

        • Hi Curtis,

          You couldn’t possibly create a straw man with just a quote. It was when you restated his position as, “we couldn’t get forgiveness of our sins until the Parousia.” This he did not say. This interprets what Jeremy said without it being a necessary conclusion from his statement or confirmation from him that that was what he meant. It was your characterization of his statement you spoke against not his statement it’s self. That is the very definition of a straw man.

          Jeremy may very well have meant what you said. That is irrelevant. He didn’t say it and your conclusion wasn’t necessary. What he said was, “we have forgiveness of our sins now and we have had it since 70AD.” What in that requires your interpretation that I quoted above by necessity? That answer I would need to retract the straw man charge. It’s simple logic.

          His statement was VERY relevant and was in context and cited. This IS what Jeremy believes Curtis.

          Phil

        • How is it relevant to the charge I made of a straw man? I agree it is relevant to a discussion about the theology behind all this, however I haven’t agreed or disagreed here with you or Jeremy over the theology, only your characterization of his statement.

          His statement does not have to mean what you said it means. What Jeremy meant as compared to what he said is (I still think) irrelevant to the charge of straw man.

          If it is relevant, please tell me how. Please remember I’m not arguing the theology in this charge only the logic.

  5. Exactly Sharon, the logical implication of the hyperpreterist is the guy who wrote the majority of the New Testament died without knowing his sins had been imputed to Christ, although he wrote otherwise.

  6. Isn’t HP just an intellectual form of reverse psychology with the goal of causing “rebirth doubt”, by a bunch of arrogant agnostics, whose real motto is “It’s over, so get over it”?

    • Hi,

      Actually its a paganistic cult whose real motto is “we have everything all figured out and you should be thanking us instead of calling us heretics.

      Phil

      I inadvertently typed “gnostic” and edited this as that would be a wrong label…..

  7. Hi,

    I’ve responded to the statement below on this podcast;

    http://ttam.podbean.com/2010/02/17/my-strawman/

    Back to Alan. He plays quotes till this one. Maybe he couldn’t find one that said exactly this so he decided to say it rather than play Alan’s actual words. He claims Alan has said that no one can understand the gospel without the light of full preterism. I have a feeling this would also be a straw man. If he said it, I think I would understand him to mean, have a full understanding, or the best understanding. Not, have no understanding at all. As Phil said Alan was arrogant, it would also be arrogant to believe he knows what Alan meant by that statement without a full quote from him on the subject. Now that he has established his straw man he knocks it down with the charge of heresy, even though he doesn’t use the word

    Phil

      • Curtis,

        You respond to that here and I’ll deal with it. All this site jumping is confusing. I’m not a member there and you are allowed to freely post here unmoderated like you did the other 4 times while I was teaching.

        Please cite which podcast you are referring to so I can answer you honestly.

        Phil

  8. Didn’t even know this site was here. I’ll try in the future to give notice for comments posted elsewhere about Theo Today, and try to communicate here with you as well. Of course I couched my statements in terms I thought my audience might agree with. Don’t we all? Nonetheless, I stand by the basics of my comments and will clarify if I can and if wanted.

      • as I said, I linked to the first AUDIO i found. I wasn’t looking for anything else. As soon as I heard you say you responded to most of it I began looking again. I thought the moment I sent the comment it might be received that way. With charity that is.

      • This just dawned on me. The link to the site in my post worked. It still does. I added more links to different pages with the same audio. I came here for discussion. Now the complaint is I didn’t name the show or site as as your would like.

        Which is more reasonable? I have the motives you ascribed to me and am lying about all my efforts. And, You the site owner, administrator, podcaster, and chief blogger here, didn’t know your own podcast was on your own archive page and you couldn’t find it, exactly where I said it was and where it still is. OR…

        You’re misrepresenting me with malicious intent! Don’t care which you think is true. Just asking which is more reasonable to believe. You see, I hadn’t thought of that all this time. I’m guessing that’s because I don’t think like you do about others without evidence. Of course you would never do that, “OK whatever….”

        Do you see how this silly game works? It’s foolish for either of us to think like this. Give it a break or ask me to move on!

        • Curtis,

          This just dawned on me. The link to the site in my post worked. It still does. I added more links to different pages with the same audio. I came here for discussion. Now the complaint is I didn’t name the show or site as as your would like.

          Which is more reasonable? I have the motives you ascribed to me and am lying about all my efforts. And, You the site owner, administrator, podcaster, and chief blogger here, didn’t know your own podcast was on your own archive page and you couldn’t find it, exactly where I said it was and where it still is. OR…

          You’re misrepresenting me with malicious intent! Don’t care which you think is true. Just asking which is more reasonable to believe. You see, I hadn’t thought of that all this time. I’m guessing that’s because I don’t think like you do about others without evidence. Of course you would never do that, “OK whatever….”

          Do you see how this silly game works? It’s foolish for either of us to think like this. Give it a break or ask me to move on!

          Now, go to the following page, that Curtis says he didn’t know existed until yesterday, yet linked to, and tell me which podcast Curtis
          was referring to, based on his critique?

          https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/the-theology-today-archives/

          I know what’s on my site as I put the articles and the media players on it. I also know the media player “hides”, for whatever reason, the most current podcast which is why if you look at the podbean site the most recent podcast doesn’t get “heard” until I post the new one and refresh the player. Most people don’t go to the podbean site but use the player fom this site Curtis.

          I’m not misrepresenting you in the least. Did you offer a direct link to the source? No, you didn’t. Did you state the title of the podcast in your critique? No, you didn’t. When I did my critique, which was in reality using a couple of statements from a show, in their context, I offered a direct link and even stated on the show which one I was referring to by the date. Had I not done that and just merely offered a link to Bondars site, people wouldn’t know what I was referring to, including most likely you.

          That’s called ethics Curtis. That’s called being honest and upfront with my listeners Curtis. You were neither.

          Phil

        • It’s not the calling attention to an error, or even academically or technically shoddy work, that troubles me, Phil. It’s that the only way you can see it, is as malicious and purposeful on my part. All things you don’t like, or disapprove of, are not by necessity, unethical and/or dishonest. Occasionally people just do poor work and make mistakes. I’m guessing you do too. Realizing that and acting accordingly is called charity Phil.

          “That’s called ethics Curtis. That’s called being honest and upfront with my listeners Curtis. You were neither.”

          It couldn’t possibly have been an oversight as you stated you had possibly made in your audio response to me? Should I have assumed about your motives and character the way you are mine about what could have been an oversight?

          My post was rhetorical just as are your podcasts. I did challenge the intelligence of your positions that I quoted. I did not challenge your morality (though I’m starting to wonder.) As far as I know that post is all you have ever known of me. We have never communicated before this week as far as I can remember. Charges of poor morality based on only that post are both unfounded and unethical.

        • Curtis,

          That type of “oversight” on your part happens quite often in your community. If you turned in a paper at the seminary where I teach and didn’t cite your sources (which you didn’t) you would get a failing grade and maybe kicked out depending on the situation. You can make as many excuses as you’d like, insult me all you want but the fact remains you failed miserably and no matter how you slice it, spin it or whatever what you did was dishonest………

          You really don’t get it do you???

          Phil

        • Gee, I wonder if it is honest to claim “I believe in “bodily” resurrection” only to define “bodily” resurrection as “resurrection” into “His” body, the “body “ of Christ instead of the “body” as in the believers or “our” body? Perhaps these guys really don’t understand what it is they are doing. However if it is just a case of ignorance on there part then they aren’t qualified to teach anyone. The choice comes down to intentional dishonesty on their part or ignorance, perhaps Curtis could clue us all in on which one it is.

        • Honesty and accuracy are two different things, that’s why in English they are two different words. Aren’t you qualified enough to know at least that?

        • Curtis writes,

          “Honesty and accuracy are two different things, that’s why in English they are two different words. Aren’t you qualified enough to know at least that?”

          Were you attempting to make a point? Do you understand the term “bodily” resurrection isn’t addressing the concept attached to the Christians standing in the “body” of Christ? If you do while maintaining your position equates to “bodily” resurrection you are not being intellectually honest with the concept. However, if you don’t then you are simply ignorant. Assuming your error lies in ignorance would be giving you the benefit of the doubt.

          So which is it, are you ignorant or are you attempting to deceive by claiming you hold to “bodily” resurrection?

  9. Hi All

    Alan Bondar;

    Dion,
    The word “soma”, which is translated body, can mean dna at times and at other times not dna. Context will determine which is being meant. We refer to a student “body” today and do not mean dna. Yet we also refer to our dna as the body. It’s the same in the Scriptures. Both are called a body, so soma is used for both meanings.

    Therefore, bodily resurrection in some contexts refers to dna. In other contexts it refers to the spiritual union that individuals have to one another (i.e. body of Christ). Thus, when I am speaking of THE resurrection, I am contrasting bodily and biological. THE resurrection was bodily, but it was the resurrection of the body of sin and death – the body of Adam. Christ took on the body of Adam (sin and death), died and resurrected. All who were united to Christ by faith joined the body of Christ, which died and resurrected. Faith in Christ was the only way to be resurrected out of the death. A change from one body to another took place. So in this context, I am using bodily resurrection and spiritual resurrection synonymously. There is no resurrection of our biological bodies. Yes, Christ was raised biologically, but that was for a sign. How else could He demonstrate that He did what He said He would?

    So contrary to what Phil says, I do not deny a bodily resurrection. Never have. The bodily resurrection was a spiritual resurrection from death to life. http://newcovenanteyes.ning.com/group/newcovenanteyestalkshow/forum/topics/response-to-phil-naessens

    What I stated on the podcast was that Alan Bondar denies the bodily resurrection of the believer which is what he says. So how did I misunderstand Bondar’s position? His position is contrary to 1Corinthians 15 and exactly what the pagans believed which was why Paul was writing this in the first place.

    Guess Paul got it wrong as well huh?

    Phil

Comments are closed.