The Christ of Apostolic Full Preterism?

[TK Burk]

I want to thank Praxeas for giving his time as moderator, and Bro. Anderson for contributing to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Sabellius

Futurism and Preterism (Full Preterism or FP heron) have been peering at a great divide for years. This divide however usually centers upon different hermeneutic styles of the text of Scripture. Primarily the Apocalyptic and Eschatological literature (e.g. Daniel, Revelation). Upon closer examination however I contend that the Christ of Preterism is not the Apostolic Christ, nor is it then truly the Christ of Scripture.

It was not until the 2nd and 3rd Century that allegorical type hermeneutics came about through the pen of Origen. Later, in Medieval (A.D. 500-1500) times, St. Augustine viewed the Church as equal with the Kingdom of God and prophecy took on a new look. From this Preterism has evolved. The grammatical-historical method, however, should be sought by modern believers.

To claim AFP is based solely on “allegorical hermeneutics” is an unreasonable summation of the hermeneutic methods employed in AFP. AFP is principally determined by comparing a text with all other occurrences where similar text/language is found in the Bible. Since the Bible contains “literal” and “figurative” language, either may be required to determine a passage’s proper interpretation. Futurism/Dispensationalism also uses both these methods. For instance, no Futurist of which I’m familiar suggests the “Beast” in the “Mark of the Beast” refers to anything other than an allegorical nature of man, nor do they literally take the “You” found in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 as being literally for the generation then living. Jesus spoke in both plain language and in parables. A parable is an allegorical teaching. To correctly understand His parables one would also have to involve both hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by Sabellius

FP views the following Christo-centric events as past:

1. The Second Coming
2. The resurrection of the dead
3. Great White Throne judgment

Bro. Anderson, I am sure you’d agree that none of these are small enough to deal with in this single debate. Consequently, each of these requires its own thread.

Now to what you asked to debate: you affirm:

Originally Posted by Sabellius

…the Christ of Preterism is not the Apostolic Christ, nor is it then truly the Christ of Scripture.

Bro. Anderson, the evidence you offered is from two men who are anti-apostolic. In his book, Charismatic Chaos, John McArthur writes against speaking in tongues and spiritual gifts. Your other source, Spiros Zodhiates, opposes the necessity of baptism and the importance of Jesus’ name baptism in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Do you believe such differences amount to these men having a Christ different than the Apostles’? If so, how could their Jesus agree with your Jesus so as to prove AFP’s Jesus is not apostolic?

The subject you chose to discuss is “The Christ of Apostolic Full Preterism” is different than the “Apostolic Christ ‘of scripture.’” Consequently, to determine whether this is true, we need to determine what the Bible says is the evidence for the prophesied Messiah.

The crux of our eschatological differences comes down to whether there is a gap between the 69th and 70th Weeks of Daniel 9. If there is no gap, then there is no basis for Futurism. If there is a gap, then AFP collapses. Daniel 9 includes a six point description of what the Messiah must complete to qualify as the Savior. These points do describe the Jesus of the Apostles. AFP contends these points are all fulfilled, thus leaving no reason for a gap. Futurism/Dispensationalism contends these points (most or all) are unfulfilled, thus necessitating a gap. The answer whether these points are fulfilled mostly settles the differences on the Second Coming, Resurrection, and White Throne, as well as what Christ is found in the Apostles’ teachings. These points are highlighted here:

Daniel 9:24
(24) Seventy weeks [490 years] are determined upon thy people [Jews] and upon thy holy city, [Jerusalem] [to accomplish six things] [1] to finish the transgression, and [2] to make an end of sins, and [3] to make reconciliation for iniquity, and [4] to bring in everlasting righteousness, and [5] to seal up the vision and prophecy, and [6] to anoint the most Holy.

I assert Futurism/Dispensationalism invalidates the Apostles’ Jesus by saying He has not fulfilled all points in Daniel 9:24, and that AFP authenticates the Apostles’ Jesus, because it confirms that He fulfilled these points. Therefore, to claim AFP does not teach the Apostles’ Jesus, Bro. Anderson you must prove Jesus did not fulfill all written of Him in Daniel 9:24 through the Apostle’s writings.

Bro. Anderson, I await your evidence where Jesus did not fulfill the six points of Daniel 9:24.


Jesus’ best,
TK Burk

[Praxeas]

588 words

At this point, the long schedule would follow with a second opening statement or a counter response,
Opening

1. Debater 1 makes opening statement Anderson opened
2. Debater 2 responds Burk responded
3. Response from Debater 1 Next would be Anderson responding
4. Response from Debater 2
5. Response from Debater 1
6. Response from Debater 2

After which we can have a cross examination

1. Cross Examination - Part 1
   1. Debater 2 asks 1st question
   2. Debater 1 responds
   3. Debater 2 asks 2nd question
   4. Debater 1 responds

[TK Burk]

Praxeas,

I understood that the word count did not include the previous quotes used by Bro. Anderson or myself. Here is where I got that:

"So what we have then is a formal debate between only two persons, nobody else can post. Each side is limited in word count. That word count will not include quotes of the previous post. It will only include all original arguments as well as scriptures and external quotes by authorities."

This was one reason why I thought it better that you did the count rather than it being done automatically. If that is the case, then the word count I get is 611. If it is not, then you now know the reason for my long-windedness.

Please, clarify this for me.

Thanks,
TKB

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Praxeas,

I understood that the word count did not include the previous quotes used by Bro. Anderson or myself. Here is where I got that:

"So what we have then is a formal debate between only two persons, nobody else can post. Each side is limited in word count. That word count will not include quotes of the previous post. It will only include all original arguments as well as scriptures and external quotes by authorities."

This was one reason why I thought it better that you did the count rather than it being done automatically. If that is the case, then the word count I get is 611. If it is not, then you now know the reason for my long-windedness.

Please, clarify this for me.

Thanks,
TKB

That is correct. I did not count the quotes of Bro Anderson. I didn't count the first sentence or your sign off

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is correct. I did not count the quotes of Bro Anderson. I didn't count the first sentence or your sign off

Okay, thanks!!

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

To claim AFP is based solely on “allegorical hermeneutics” is an unreasonable summation of the hermeneutic methods employed in AFP. AFP is principally determined by comparing a text with all other occurrences where similar text/language is found in the Bible. Since the Bible contains “literal” and “figurative” language, either may be required to determine a passage’s proper interpretation. Futurism/Dispensationalism also uses both these methods. For instance, no Futurist of which I’m familiar suggests the “Beast” in the “Mark of the Beast” refers to anything other than an allegorical nature of man, nor do they literally take the “You” found in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 as being literally for the generation then living. Jesus spoke in both plain language and in parables. A parable is an allegorical teaching. To correctly understand His parables one would also have to involve both hermeneutics.

I agree with these statements mostly, especially that both types of hermeneutical styles are necessary in interpreting the entire corpus of Scripture. I realize alternate methods are used but the faux pas of AFP seems to be a result of that type. This is evident in AFP’s deconstruction of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and texts about the Coming of Christ in the Gospels.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Anderson, I am sure you’d agree that none of these are small enough to deal with in this single debate. Consequently, each of these requires its own thread.

Now to what you asked to debate: you affirm:

I realize this as well. I am sure you would agree too, in an opening statement, introductory remarks are “fair” rather than “fire” as you may have supposed them to be. I am sure though we will touch on them later. My primary reason, as it relates to the debate, is that they are ALL Christo-centric events. This contributes to the overall evidence.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Bro. Anderson, the evidence you offered is from two men who are anti-apostolic. In his book, Charismatic Chaos, John McArthur writes against speaking in tongues and spiritual gifts. Your other source, Spiros Zodhiates, opposes the necessity of baptism and the importance of Jesus’ name baptism in his Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Do you believe such differences amount to these men having a Christ different than the Apostles’? If so, how could their Jesus agree with your Jesus so as to prove AFP’s Jesus is not apostolic?

I appreciate you taking the time to research this TKB. It is only redundant however since I am fully aware of these authors beliefs. I think the problem here though is logic. If you believe in only using Apostolic authors I think this discussion breaks down quickly. If you think that just because MacArthur or Zodhiates hold those views it makes ALL their thoughts invalid then this discussion breaks down quickly.

In logic this is called a genetic fallacy. This is an informal fallacy which generally undermines truth statements. For example:

“Coach Burk’s view on homosexuality can be discounted since he’s a Christian.”

In this statement Coach Burk’s view was undermined because of who he is. This militates against the fact that Coach Burk could be telling the truth about the issue. Norman Geisler, in his review of The Apocalypse Code, by Hank Hannegraff points this fallacy out as well.

“This fallacy occurs in The Code when it dismisses the dispensational pretrib view because of its alleged source in John Nelson Darby (40–41) whom Hank calls a “disillusioned priest” from the 19th cent. By the same logic one could reject modern scientific inventions because some were derived from questionable sources like Tesla’s AC motor from a vision while reading a pantheistic poet and Kekule’s model of the benzine molecule from a vision of a snake bitting its tail!” (Geisler)

The prophesied Messiah and the prophecy of His Second Coming are both key topics. Is there a difference in a Christ that has already come and one that has not? Is there a difference between a Christ who came spiritually and one who came physically? Is there even a difference between a God who pours His wrath only on Jerusalem and one who pours it out upon the world? Please answer those questions directly and concisely as possible.

Here is another difference. To most Futurists the apocalyptic events of Armageddon, preceding the glorious Day of The Lord, the Millennium, during which the returned Christ will rule. In AFP however we find fulfillment of all these things in the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. These CHRISTO-CENTRIC events have DIFFERENT meanings and outcomes. Is the Christ who came in 70 AD the same that Futurists look for in the future?

Another reason that AFP teaches a different Christ is our partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ. Believer partake of communion (the bread and the wine) today or at least until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). In your view this is totally unnecessary since Christ has already come. Believers do this to show His death.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

The subject you chose to discuss is “The Christ of Apostolic Full Preterism” is different than the “Apostolic Christ ‘of scripture.’”

I await your evidence where Jesus did not fulfill the six points of Daniel 9:24.

I don't think one equals the other. Let's work on the The Christ of AFP a little more.

NOTES:

1. Review of Hank Hanegraff's The Apocalypse Code, by Norman L. Geisler. http://www.normangeisler.net/ReviewApocalypseCode.html

[Praxeas]

580 Words. Next is Bro Burk's response

[TK Burk]

Bro. Anderson, you’ve not proven any of your opinions are criterion used by the Apostles.

I understand your reluctance to discuss Daniel 9:24. If those points are fulfilled, “the gap” is nullified. If Jesus didn’t complete them, He "failed” His task. Anti-missionary Rabbis’ claim this last point to "unconvert" Christians. Jews for Judaism1 (JFJ) asks: "How can we be sure that Jesus' promises to return are false prophecy?" The writer responds: "Jesus, it is claimed, prophesied that certain unspecified individuals would not die until they would see either 'the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' (Mat 16:28), or 'see the kingdom of God after it has come with power' (Mark 9:1), or see the 'kingdom of God' (Luke 9:27)." He accounted for this by saying since Jesus didn’t come as "rapidly as promised," and since Matthew 10:23 was not fulfilled "by the time of the last of the original band of the apostles died," then Jesus' promise remains "unfulfilled," thus Jesus is not the Messiah.

Another example is in the writings of atheist, Bertrand Russell2.

"I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, 'Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come.' Then He says, 'There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom'; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. IN THAT RESPECT, CLEARLY HE WAS NOT SO WISE AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN, AND HE WAS CERTAINLY NOT SUPERLATIVELY WISE."

JFJ and Russell use Futurist/Dispensational teachings as illustrations to “prove” their anti-Jesus views. These include Jesus and His apostles' misinterpreting His prophesied coming. Such allegation questions the legitimacy of Jesus and the Apostles’ writings.

Historic Premillennialist, George Eldon Ladd, sacrifices Jesus' credibility when attempting to explain the “soon coming” disparity3 :

"These events are 'soon' to 'take place'... These words have troubled the commentators. The simplest solution is to take the preterist view and to say that John, like the entire Christian community, thought that the coming of the Lord was near, WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE WRONG. Our LORD HIMSELF SEEMS TO SHARE THIS ERROR in perspective in the saying: "This generation will not pass away before all these things take place (Mark 13:30)."

Statements like Ladd’s only help Jesus’ critics. A similar statement was made by former UPCI General Superintendent, Bro. Nathaniel Urshan4 :

"The Apostles preached the coming of the Lord because THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THE LAST DAYS. Two thousand years later I am preaching the coming of the Lord because it is the last days."

If he’s correct, then all Scripture becomes subject to suspension.

Bro. Anderson, your position aligns with the critics of Christianity who argue Jesus failed to accomplish the six points in Daniel 9:24. AFP does not, for its position biblically proves Jesus perfectly fulfilled Daniel 9:24, thus verifying He is the Christ of the Apostles. I hope your next response contains the scriptures you use when explaining how Jesus did not fulfill these prophecies.

NOTES:
1. www.jewsforjudaism.org
2. Why I am not a Christian, 1927, Pg3
3. A Commentary on the Revelation of John, Pg22
4. The Coming of the Lord, The Pentecostal Herald, 01/2001, Pg5

[Praxeas]

Bro Burk, since you did not include quotes I am asking if this is supposed to be a response to brother Anderson's post?

BTW I have a suggestion to both of you. First of all be reminded that one person makes the opening remarks, Debater 2 responds to that, debater 1 responds to that response and so on and so on. Then after 2 rounds we will enter into a cross examination where each person asks the other questions.

I think it is helpful to outline your responses as "points", perhaps hi-lighting a particular point you want the other to respond to.

The other person quotes the points then responds. At the moment we are on opening #4. Bro Burk, at the conclusion you will have an opportunity to challenge Anderson if he is willing to a debate on a different area of topic or a particular verse. Below is the long formula. This is what we are going to use for now unless you both agree it needs to be modified.

Mind you all, this is new for us so hopefully we can work out some bugs in the future.

1. Opening
   1. Debater 1 makes opening statement Anderson
   2. Debater 2 responds Burk
   3. Response from Debater 1 Anderson
   4. Response from Debater 2 Burk
   5. Response from Debater 1 Anderson
   6. Response from Debater 2 Burk
2. Cross Examination - Part 1
   1. Debater 2 asks 1st question
   2. Debater 1 responds
   3. Debater 2 asks 2nd question
   4. Debater 1 responds
3. Cross Examination - Part 2
   1. Debater 1 asks 1st question
   2. Debater 2 responds
   3. Debater 1 asks 2nd question
   4. Debater 2 responds
4. Concluding remarks from both sides.
   1. Debater 2 makes closing statement
   2. Debater 1 makes closing statement

[Praxeas]

BTW I have made a thread in the Fellowship Hall for discussion.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=23312

After discussion starts I may move it back to the doctrine area. It's there to let others know about this debate