Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Eccesiology Eschatology Soteriology Bibliology Christology Pneumatology
Hamartiology Hermeneutics History Apologetics Humor Website
 
Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Home » view

Postmillennialism or Preterism?: The Advancement of the Kingdom

Postmillennialism or PreterismDuring a recent “circle the wagons” conference where hyperpreterists got together to comfort one another that their movement isn’t collapsing but actually growing, Sam Frost gave a lecture called, “World Getting Better: A Biblical & Statistical Answer”. (source)

 

The speech was a classic proposition not for preterism but for postmillennialism yet Frost never really brings this out.  Frost being a studied man has to know that what he is preaching is actually postmillennialism yet throughout the speech he credits preterism.  This is the on-going tactic of hyperpreterists.  They will say such things as, “[full preterism] has been widely known & embraced in centuries past” (source)  It is a lie.

 

It does not require the lies & errors of hyperpreterism to see the “world getting better” – postmillennialism has been saying this for centuries.  America was even founded on the concept of postmillennialism – that the mustard seed kingdom is ever advancing (Mt 13:31-32).  America so much embraced this concept of an ever advancing Christian influence on the world that it even at one time held the notion of “Manifest Destiny” wherein it is “allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions”  (source).  At one time, Americans saw the mission of expanding freedom as synonymous with expanding Christianity – it was the concept that only Christ sets men free. (John 8:32-33)

 

So, why was Frost not talking about postmillennial Christianity & how it has shaped many Western cultures?  Because it doesn’t fit the program to advance hyperpreterism.  Just as hyperpreterists have deceptively taken the historic theological term “preterist” & claimed that the only true preterist is their kind of heretical preterist, here too we see Frost taking all the positive concepts of postmillennialism & crediting hyperpreterism.  How is he able to do this?  Because his audience is mainly former dispensationalists who like Frost “in [his] world [he] didn’t grow up with the contributions of Christianity, we just heard how the world was falling apart”.  Hyperpreterism is a reaction (over-reaction) to dispensationalism & since many of hyperpreterists had never experienced classic postmillennial thought, they easily embrace hyperpreterism as the positive alternative to flawed dispensationalism.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE HYPERPRETERISM TO SEE HOW CHRISTIANITY HAS & CONTINUES TO POSITIVELY INFLEUNCE ALL AREAS OF LIFE; education, arts, medical, scientific, politics & so on.

 

The next time you hear a hyperpreterist railing against the negative “doom & gloom” message of modern Christianity, know that they are blindly reacting to 200 years dispensationalism & that they have little knowledge of the centuries of classic, historic Christianity that has had such a huge impact on cultures & societies.

 

Hyperpreterism is merely a little heretical faction trying to take credit for generally positive productive message of Christianity. 

By Roderick on 2008 Apr 13 - 11:06 | Eschatology | add new comment | email this page | printer friendly version | 1594 reads

Handled???

I received a posting from a guy who (to play his little game) will remain nameless & not even be source-linked, who attempted to respond for Sam Frost.  First, I find it interesting that this guy is always going around being the apologist for Frost.  But anyhow, he took issue with this quote from the article:

“If what full preterism says is true, then they have to also be saying that the apostles did a lousy job at relating the truth that was revealed to them...since by the full preterist premise either the Church quickly corrupted or quickly forgot what the apostles taught. So much for the gates of hades not prevailing against Christ's Church eh? -- So yes, full preterism is ARROGANT by nature & design.”

He responds with this sentence: "I find it interesting that “reform” Christians would employ this argument because it fails to acknowledge the reality that ULTIMATELY God is in charge of the whole teaching/learning business."

Really?  The statement from the article COMPLETELY ACKNOWLEDGES the reality that God is in charge of the whole teaching/learning business of His Church.  So much so that again, if what the hyperpreterists are saying is true, then they are saying God allowed/decreed that the truth of eschatology was never really brought to the fore of the Church (by God) until the late 19th century & ultimately via Max King in the 1970s.  That God allowed/decreed His Church to remain confused about eschatology for nearly 2000 years.  Is this really what hyperpreterists want us to believe???

The responder goes on to reference Heb 6:1-3 & follows it up with saying: "And this we will do if God permits….wait a second. Paul, you mean God may not permit us to “do” “this”? God may not permit us to “leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity”?"

Ahhh... I guess we have our answer.  Hyperpreterists DO want us to believe that God has not "permitted" the Church to rightly understand eschatology for nearly 2000 years.  Hmmm... maybe using this thinking, maybe the Mormons are right.  Maybe Joseph Smith Jr. really was being used by God to correct the errors of the Church?  Maybe Muhammad (who also said he came to teach religion rightly) was correct to think he was God's prophet?  Folks, Heb 6:1-3 ISN'T to be interpreted as this guy is trying to do.  He makes it sound as if revelation & biblical enlightenment comes even AFTER the apostles have left the scene.  If Holy Spirit-guided, inspired apostles could not relate & capture the truth of Christ (John 16:13), then do you see the arrogance of these hyperpreterists to claim THEY can "stumble" upon truth.  The implication of this guy's use of Heb 6:1-3 is still arrogant -- the implication is that God is directly guiding him to "leave the elementary doctrine of Christ & go on to maturity" (how about the guy just start being mature to start with & then he can begin to look more maturely at the doctrines DELIVERED TO THE APOSTLES).

The respondent's next objection to the article is expressed in this statement: "Another reason this objection is weak is because it fails to acknowledge examples given to us in Scripture itself of pupils simply not getting it."

I could just start interacting with this statement but if I did I would commit an error -- the error is that the man's statement is a false premise.  The statement ignores that there was a reason Jesus hand-picked APOSTLES.  Jesus didn't merely found His Church on the masses & hope they understood Him enough to carry the message along.

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, (Eph 2:19-21)

The respondent's premise ignores this very important element which when coupled with the actual INSPIRATION of the apostles shows us that something different was to happen with the apostles than with just some Joe-schmoe that could read the Scriptures for himself (even in the original languages with all the understanding of the idioms & such).

The reason Jesus'  "pupils" sometimes didn't "get it" because it WASN'T TIME FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND -- them being the apostles.  After all, Jesus was relating to them the heavenly "mysteries" -- how easily could a human mind grasp that BEFORE the inspiration comes?

The respondents quotes instances where the disciples "forgot" to bring bread for a meal & ACTUALLY tries to equate this to the apostles not relating the truth of eschatology. Huh? What??? Further he quotes Paul's admonishment of the Thessaloians in 2 Thess 2:1-5 as if an encouraging pep speech can be equated to 2000 years of the Church "not getting it".  Wow, the arrogance of these hyperpreterists is astounding.

The respondent ends his supposed refutation with this statement: "I hope I have demonstrated what a “lousy” argument this is. It is one that fails to acknowledge other possible factors in the learning process, namely the sovereignty of God; and it is one that flat out ignores examples within the Scripture itself of pupils either a little slow or simply not getting what Jesus and/or the Apostles taught. Heaven forbid these objectors would impugn the job of Christ and His Apostles. That is where such a fallacious argument would lead if taken seriously."

No sir, building from false premises & then ending with a statement appealing to "possible factors" does NOT "demonstrate" anything but the fact that you didn't "get it".  Comparing accounts where UNinspired disciples "forgot" to bring bread for a meal to your premise that God has not "permitted" His Church to understand the proper teaching of eschatology for 2000 years is so far off base that I'm surprised none of your "sov grace" cronies didn't point this out.  Instead it is YOUR premise that impugns God, impugns Christ, & impugns the hand-picked, Holy Spirit guided apostles as either "lousy teachers" OR as withholding understanding for 2000 years -- YET, hyerpreterists have the nerve to rail against "futurists"????  HUH?  What???

By Roderick on April 26, 2008 - 09:23 | parent | reply