STEVE ATKERSON, President of NTRF (New Testament Reformation Fellowship), will address the theme: "WILL JESUS CHRIST RETURN? An Examination of Hyper-Preterism".According to our guest, Steve Atkerson:
"Realized eschatology, or full preterism [Hyper-Preterism], is a new belief system about end times events. Full preterism is unique from all other systems (idealism, dispensational futurism, orthodox preterism and historicism) in that it makes the claim that the actual second coming of Jesus has already happened! Not only that, but both the general resurrection of the read and the final judgment are said to be past events...
...In order to justify these claims, full preterism has to redefine historic Christian theology concerning the second coming, the nature of the resurrection of the dead, and the great white throne judgment. In as much as full preterism is the new kid on the theological block, the possibility of it representing the true biblical view of end times is highly suspect. It could better be designated as unorthodox preterism, because the "full" part of preterism is fully error."
During this two-day discussion, Steve Atkerson will seek to refute Hyper-Preterism due to these main points:
1. BIBLICAL STATEMENTS ON THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD Should Lead To A Rejection of Full Preterism.
2. BIBLICAL STATEMENTS ON THE NATURE OF THE SECOND COMING REQUIRE A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.
3. EARTH-SHATTERING EFFECTS OF THE SECOND COMING & THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT FORCE A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.
4. THE VARIOUS COMINGS OF THE LORD THAT ARE DISTINCT FROM THE SECOND COMING SHOULD LEAD TO A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.
5. THE PHENOMENON OF TELESCOPING PROPHECY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Would Argue For A Rejection of Full Preterism.
6. THE DOUBLE FULFILLMENT OF SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES ALLOWS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SAME IN NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES AND SHOULD MAKE ONE WARY OF FULL PRETERIST CLAIMS.
7. "ALL" IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN "ALL", MAKING FULL PRETERISM NOT SO FULL.
8. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETICAL USE OF IMMINENT TIME STATEMENTS:IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO!THIS ALLOWS FOR A SIMILAR POSSIBILITY IN NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY AND UNDERMINES FULL PRETERISM.
9. STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TRANSFORMATION AND RAPTURE OF LIVING CHURCH AT SECOND COMING MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AD 70 JUDGMENT TO HAVE BEEN THE SECOND COMING.
10. CONFIDENCE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT'S ABILITY TO GUIDE THE CHURCH MUST LEAD TO A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.
Find out what Steve Atkerson and many other biblically orthodox Evangelical Christians believe are the great dangers of Hyper-Preterism by tuning in to this important two-day broadcast!
Here are some links to valuable material on this issue:
http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerfuture.html
http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerrealpret.html
http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkercomings.html
http://preteristsite.com/docs/atker70.html
http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerwindmills.html
8 comments:
This sounds like a VERY interesting debate since we have become quite interested lately in Covenant Eschatology (Full preterism) and it seems so right in every way. This is a debate that NEEDS to happen and we'll be following it very closely! Thank you so much!
I would most happily debate Mr. Atkerson on this program. It is one thing for someone to set up straw man arguments and knock them down. And as I view Mr. Atkerson's objections / points, that is much of his approach.
If the object of this program is the search for truth, and not simply an attack on the beliefs of others, I ask that you please consider an actual debate between myself and Mr. Atkerson on this program.
Respectfully,
Don K. Preston
President
Preterist Research Institute
www.eschatology.org
Mr. Preston,
Iron Sharpens Iron is not doing live broadcasts at the moment, but when the show resumes live, you'll be kept in mind.
Thanks, James! That would be great, and, I think of great interest to your audience.
God bless!
Don K
Please, please, please can someone make this Don Preston/Steve Atkerson debate happen. There are so many of us anxious to hear both sides of the issue from two scholars.
Thank you
Frank Speer
There are so many of us anxious to hear both sides of the issue from two scholars.
I would not consider Mr. Atkerson a "scholar" nor do I think he considers himself a scholar. I know very little about Mr. Preston.
The word "scholar" can be a bit tricky. I typically only consider people with advanced degrees in specialized areas to be "scholars." That does not mean though that there aren't non-scholars qualified to debate particular topics.
I see your point, however...
The New World Dictionary...
SCHOLAR:
1. learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.
2. a student; pupil.
3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship.
I see your point, however...The New World Dictionary...SCHOLAR:1. learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject. 2. a student; pupil. 3. a student who has been awarded a scholarship.
As I understand it, if one were to trace the etymology of the word "scholar" the word appears to have gone from being used to describe "one who is being schooled" to "one who is apt in schoolwork" to "one who is thoroughly schooled." For the later use, Funk and Wagnals describes this person as "one who is thoroughly schooled, master of what the schools can teach, an erudite, accomplished person: when used without qualification, the word is generally understood in this sense; as he is manifestly a scholar" (Funk and Wagnals New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language (New York: J.G. Ferguson and Associates, 1952), p. 1171).
The last usage would be the sense in which I understand and use the word in this context. If I recall from listening to these shows when they aired back in 2008, Mr. Atkerson himself said there were others more qualified than he to answer the claims of full-preterism. I would in no way consider him a "scholar" in that sense of "later use." Perhaps he would describe himself in one of the former senses, and perhaps this is all you intended when you referred to both gentlemen as scholars.
Without knowing too much about Mr. Preston (other than the biographical information found via the link he left above), he certainly appears to be well-informed on full-preterism (of the critiques of full-preterism that I've read, his name appears). I'm certain he can represent his understanding of full-preterism in debate.
On the flip side of this is Ivory Tower syndrome in which "scholars" (in the fullest sense) are given too much authority either in their own area of expertise (or in other areas which aren't their field of expertise). That is, simply because a "scholar" arrives at "X", his opinion serves as an infallible authority. In my own areas of interest (Reformation studies), I've found more than a few slips when I've checked facts used by this or that scholar. So, my 2 cents is that simply because a scholar says something- this doesn't mean that it's true.
Happy New Year Frank! We will certainly keep Mr. Preston in mind when the show starts up live again.
Post a Comment