Preterism Continuation
This is a continuation of my post on preterism. I may add a few addendums as I did on the previous post (when/if I get the time).
Question: How can preterists claim that there isn’t a bodily resurrection of the dead?
1 Corinthians 15:12-26
(12) Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(13) But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
(15) We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
(16) For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
(17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
(18) Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
(19) If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
(20) But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
(21) For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
(22) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(23) But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
(24) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
(25) For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
(26) The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Be sure to note the chronology (order) of the events being discussed above. Specifically in verses 23-26.
When is death destroyed (swallowed up)?
1 Corinthians 15:51-54
(51) Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
(52) in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
(53) For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
(54) When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
It is clear that “death” here is referring to death of the physical body. At some point in the future our perishable physical bodies will become imperishable. This did not take place in 70 A.D. and it hasn’t taken place to date. Even if some preterists were to argue that this isn’t referring to the physical body, their point would be moot. This was written in ~55 A.D. and the events had not yet taken place. Couple that with the fact that “death” for the believer is no different now (post 70 A.D.) than it was then (pre 70 A.D.) and what you have is the death of full preterism by way of the Scripture.
Addendum(7/14):
More Scripture on the physical return of Christ. The below passage is not a dream, it is not symbolic or allegorical, it is a physical event that took place.
Acts 1:6-11 ESV
(6) So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
(7) He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.
(8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
(9) And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
(10) And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
(11) and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
I would like to point out that one of the problems with preterism is that it is a doctrine devised from a few verses in the Scripture and “human reason/assumption”. I have pointed out the danger of doing this (in regards to doctrine) several times in previous posts. Hinging a doctrine on a few verses isn’t a good thing to do. What takes place next is trying to make other verses fit into your understanding based on merely a few verses, or worse yet, discarding some of the verses and their meaning. Many cults are formed in a similar fashion.
This is why it is so important for us to interpret Scripture by Scripture, examine it line by line, and build precept upon precept.
There are an overwhelming number of verses and Scripture that support the physical return of Christ, bodily resurrection, and incomplete prophesy. The multitude of verses I have used in my two posts are merely a small sample on the subject. However, pretty much everything you read in support of preterism starts with an assumption on a few verses in Matthew, an event, and circular/human reasoning trying to explain away opposing verses. There are plenty of exegetical studies on the verses in Matthew that are perfectly acceptable and do not require a heretical preterist stance.
Addendum(8/15):
Just wanted to add this link on the subject, it is really good. Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism
AMDG
Comments
4 Comments on Preterism Continuation
-
Christendom Blogosis » Blog Archive » Full Preterism & Creeds on
Thu, 14th Jul 2005 17:53
-
Affective on
Sat, 16th Jul 2005 23:20
-
ChristWeb » Blog Archive » Christian Carnival on
Thu, 21st Jul 2005 11:41
-
jeff on
Sat, 23rd Jul 2005 16:38
[...] ying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” This post continues here. AMDG This entry was posted on Wednes [...]
Good post, Brian. I agree with your take on this. One thing, it’s funny, and perfectly honest, in your second to last paragraph, you quote from Isaiah 28–”. . . line upon line, precept upon precept . . .;” notice the context in Isaiah. Is it positive, or negative 
(I see people using this language constantly in the context of sound hermeneutics–it’s ironic, i.e. Kay Arthur’s “Precepts”).
Anyways, good post!
Bobby
[...] Not…” really means and what we should do with it. Christendom Blogosis has a discussion on preterism. John Luke at Blogcorner Preacher presents [...]
Thanks for the post. To have a proper understanding of somthing like resurrection we do well to accept the simplest understanding that accommodates all the data. It seems the preterist deal leaves off with far to much of the relevant data. Then goes on to disjoint the overall sense IMO. Also, I enjoyed reading thru the “bill of rights” thing.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!