Re: Eschatology and The Beginning

At 01:15 PM 4/19/2006, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>"... Janice is incorrect to say that we do not believe in a bodily
>resurrection, we do. But is that body physical or just spiritual,
>this is debated among preterists. ..."
>
>>@ "Full" Preterism (sometimes called "consistent" Preterism) is
>>considered to be heresy (known as "Hymenaeanism") mainly
>>because it denies the bodily resurrection.
>>http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hythere.html
>>I am a partial Preterist. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html
>> ~ Janice

@@ Ah ... but ".....All of them deny that the resurrection will
involve empty tombs. "

"....I am only going to focus in on one portion of the entire
"hyper-preterist" heresy, and that is the reworking/redefinition of
the resurrection described in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4
to be an event that happened in the events surrounding AD70. Though
grave errors in themselves, the denial of the future physical return
of Christ and future final judgment are not the ones that earn the
title "Hymenaean" or the designation of being a potentially damnable
heresy. It should also be noted that since this is such a difficult
doctrine to deny, there are almost as many redefinitions of the
resurrection as there are Hymenaeans. Some deny any physicality,
while others affirm a certain physicality that has no organic
relation to the body that dies.

All of them deny that the resurrection will involve empty tombs.

1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according
to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you
may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which
some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck,
of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that
they may learn not to blaspheme.

2 Timothy 2:15-19 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a
worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to
more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer.
Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning
the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they
overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the solid foundation of God
stands, having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His," and,
"Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity."

These verses are surely speaking of the same "Hymenaeus" who receives
one of the strongest condemnations from the Apostle Paul found in
Scripture. Paul explicitly identifies his doctrinal error as "saying
that the resurrection is already past." The prima facie similarity is
evident. This ancient heretic claimed that the resurrection was past;
modern-day Hymenaeans say that the resurrection is past.

What else does Paul say about this man?
    * He has rejected the faith and good conscience
    * He is a blasphemer
    * He incorrectly divides the word of truth
    * He profanely and idly babbles
    * He is ungodly
    * His message spreads like cancer in the body
    * He has strayed concerning the truth and overthrows the faith of others
    * He is not one of the Lord's own

These are not descriptions of a believer but of a condemned heretic.
The only specific doctrinal error that is given is that he was
teaching that the resurrection had already taken place. Now it is
often asked by modern-day Hymenaeans how this teaching could have
taken root if the Apostles had so clearly taught an "empty graves"
type of resurrection? The argument is that Paul could have simply run
to the nearest graveyard to prove Hymenaeus wrong, but he did not.
The assumption is then made that Hymenaeus did teach a type of
non-physical resurrection, but that Paul did not correct his
understanding of the nature of the resurrection, merely the timing of it.

There is much wrong with that reasoning. On its most simple level it
assumes that if something had been clearly taught by the Apostles,
and by implication the Bible, then it would have been impossible for
blatantly false teachings to arise. This is obviously incorrect in
several easily demonstrable ways. First, all one has to do is to look
around at the plethora of psuedo-Christian cults and false belief
systems such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and
Mormons to see that clear teaching is no certain remedy against
blatantly false teaching for "the heart is deceitful above all things
and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:10). Second, the Hymenaean is
gored upon the horns of his own argument since the earliest testimony
of the Church consistently affirmed a yet- future (to them) return of
Christ and physical resurrection. Using the self-same Hymenaean
argument, how could the early Church have fallen into such apostasy
immediately after the writing of the NT Scriptures and within the
lifetimes of some of the Apostles if they so clearly taught that the
resurrection was an event concurrent with the destruction of Jerusalem??

Second, the argument also assumes what Paul should have done to prove
Hymenaeus wrong about the nature of the resurrection (i.e. run to
nearest graveyard). Says who?? Hymenaeus obviously already rejected
the authority and teachings of Paul. Such a demonstration would only
be meaningful to those who already agreed with Paul to whom Paul had
nothing to prove. Also, notice that Paul never ran to Jesus' empty
tomb either to prove His resurrection either.

Third, it is an argument from silence which is not supported by the
facts and context. Further, it is just assumed that I must defend the
position Hymenaeus had an improper understanding of the nature of the
resurrection. While I do agree with that assumption, especially
considering the wealth of anti-Gnostic polemic authored by Paul and
the Gnostic's aversion of things material, that is not the only
possible option. It is also quite possible that Hymenaeus was
referring to the resurrection of the "many" saints described in
Matthew 27:52 and was teaching that they were all that were to be
resurrected. In such a case, his understanding of the nature of the
resurrection may have been quite correct.

So we have the outright condemnation of an ancient heretic who
certainly denied the proper timing of the resurrection and may have
also denied the proper nature of the resurrection as well. This is
exactly what is going on with modern-day Hymenaeanism only they are
certainly committing both errors while Hymenaeus may have been
thoroughly condemned just making one of them! Thus, taking my
presuppositions as true to determine if I am properly utilizing terms
within my own framework, it is readily apparent that if I am right,
then the term "Hymenaean" is more than accurate and the designation
of such teaching as a "potentially damnable" heresy is downright generous.

I have once heard it claimed that there is a possibility that there
is a translation error in 1 Timothy 1:18-20 and that Hymenaeus was
not claiming that the resurrection was past, but that the
resurrection would never happen at all. I don't find this even
remotely convincing and neither does any majority of modern New
Testament scholarship. In fact, I checked the gamut of translations
including the KJV, NKJV, NRSV, Young's Literal, NIV, NLT, NCV, 1901
Darby, 1901 ASV, NAS, and the NAB and found remarkable unanimity
about the translation of this passage. It is unquestionably correct.
However, as I will show later, it would make little difference in the
final outcome as we have another Biblical witness to consider.

BUT DOES IT WALK LIKE A DUCK??

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 Now if Christ is preached that He has been
raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no
resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the
dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our
preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are
found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that
He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up-if in fact the dead do
not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And
if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your
sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the
most pitiable.

Paul clearly states here that a denial of the "resurrection of the
dead" is in fact a salvational issue. Though Paul goes on to explain
why this denial is so grievous (which is another point fatal to
Hymenaeanism) that is not relevant to the goal of this article. The
simple germane fact was that such a denial rendered one's faith empty
and futile, and such a one would still be in their sins. This is very
serious stuff.

Now the Hymenaeans will say that this condemnation is not applicable
since their system does not deny the resurrection. Now here is where
the groundwork that I laid on the philosophy of language comes into
serious play. The word "resurrection" is not magical, it is the
meaning that is poured into the word that is paramount. If we
orthodox Christians are correct about the nature of the resurrection,
then a denial of that "kind" of resurrection is in fact a denial of
the doctrine of the resurrection despite the fact that similar
terminology is used.

IT'S A DUCK!!

I have demonstrated that coming from my perspective, I am being
perfectly consistent in my condemnations of this heresy and my
labeling of it as Hymenaeanism. There is an additional point that
needs to be made here, and that is why I state that this mythology is
a "potentially" damnable heresy and not a definitely damnable heresy.
I do this because I am not God and do not know a person's heart. I do
not know if they have some kind of mental defect or how
wholeheartedly they really embrace this mythology. A dear friend
pointed out to me that there is a difference between someone who
believes a heresy and a condemned heretic, and such a distinction
requires discernment. If a person in full command of their faculties
has been presented with the truth and willfully and repeatedly
disregards and rejects it in this matter, such a person is a heretic.
Others may simply just be deceived and need guidance and correction.
It is a fine line to tread, but tread it we must as there are eternal
consequences at stake, and the wolves are amongst the sheep.

Mallards and Pekings: Some of the more sophisticated Hymenaeans try
to point out likely differences between their teachings and the
ancient error of Hymenaeus, which of course implicitly recognizes
that there are significant similarities. The point is attempted that
since there are differences and the two mythologies don't match up on
"all fours," then it is improper to use the label of Hymenaeanism for
the modern version.

Well first of all, using a famous or infamous name with an "ism"
attached does not have to mean that the teachings of all such
individuals are exact.

The modern Hymenaeans cannot even agree amongst themselves about how
exactly to redefine the resurrection, but we can all see that they
are of the same ilk.

It is quite commonplace to refer to Christadelphians and Jehovah's
Witnesses as subscribers to "Arianism." However, there are
differences between what Arius' teaching and that of his modern day
spawn. But, the nexus between them is the primary crux and is what
earns them the title.

No one who calls a Jehovah's Witness an Arian is making the claim
that any particular Jehovah's Witness believes the exact same things
that Arius did, just that they share the major pillar in his
mythology, i.e. the denial of the deity of Christ.

It is the same thing with the modern Hymenaeans. I have no problem
stating that there may certainly be differences between the
historical Hymenaeus and the neo-Hymenaeans, but what they share in
common is a pillar of the
mythology. ..." http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hythere.html

~ Janice
Received on Wed Apr 19 15:38:10 2006