http://thereignofchrist.com/an-evening-of-eschatology

The same Wilson???

Mike

David,
Thanks for your elaborations. That was very helpful. It would also be very helpful if all the Closet Wilsons would please stand up and stop hiding beyond sola Scriptura since they don’t really mean it. Then everyone would clearly see that full preterists are the only ones that do mean it.

Dave, do you think that crew is the least bit reticent by the reckless schitzo behavior? It’s bad enough to be inconsistent, but to be anathematizing people as well is truly sad. Why are so many in that reformed PP camp so caustic and arrogant? Why does Gentry continue to repeat the nonsense that we supposedly don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ? Why does Talbot acuse us of changing all the soteriological definitions like Mormons? Do these guys have no shame? Are they so blinded by their creedal commitments (the say they don’t have) that they feel they must condemn us? They admit that the difference between partial and full is just a hair’s breath of nuance…can the Gospel be so flimsy that when one steps over that creedally imposed line, they step right over perserverance of the saints and proceed directly to eternal damnation? Simply because we are not blinded by the inconsistencies of the ECF’s, and because we recognize the 33 constituent elements between 1 Thes 4-5 and Matt 24-25, brands us eternal losers?

On the one hand, the church fathers arrived at their eschatological, creedal beliefs “in a naive, unreflective fashion” and without “intensive study” (Mathison).
But on the other hand, we must presuppose that creedal futurism is biblical and “infallibly certain” (Gentry) and “nonnegotiable” (Mathison) and that if we reject it we’re following a different religion than Christianity (Mathison).

On the one hand, the eschatological time statements of Scripture are very difficult and perplexing because they seem to teach “hyper-preterism” (Mathison).
But on the other hand, there is nothing in the Bible that even remotely suggests “hyper-preterism” (Mathison).

On the one hand, we must “apply the test of scriptural consistency to ANY theological idea, whether or not it is embodied in the traditional creeds” (Wilson).
But on the other hand, it is illegitimate to use Scripture to challenge the eschatology of the creeds (Wilson).

On the one hand, we’re heretics because we disagree with creedal, eschatological statements.
But on the other hand, Gentry, Mathison, Wilson and other disagree with the creeds when they say we’re now living in “the age to come.”

One the one hand, Gentry, Mathison, Wilson and others anathematize us because we disagree with creedal, eschatological statements.
But on the other hand, they embrace premillennialists who disagree with creedal eschatological statements when they deny that the resurrection of the dead will happen at Christ’s second coming.

On the one hand, we’re condemned because “hyper-preterism” is “new.”
But on the other hand, Gentry and Mathison and others hold to the Reformation understanding of justification (purely forensic, purely by faith), which was also “new” in the 1500’s.

It’s a wonder they take themselves seriously.

Dave