{"id":1581,"date":"2008-12-16T17:36:48","date_gmt":"2008-12-16T22:36:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/2008\/12\/16\/a-brilliant-defense-against-steve-greggs-preterism-from-dr-norman-l-geisler.html"},"modified":"2015-07-14T19:18:18","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T00:18:18","slug":"a-brilliant-defense-against-steve-greggs-preterism-from-dr-norman-l-geisler","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/a-brilliant-defense-against-steve-greggs-preterism-from-dr-norman-l-geisler.html","title":{"rendered":"A brilliant defense against Steve Gregg’s Preterism from Dr. Norman L. Geisler."},"content":{"rendered":"

Apparently Steve Gregg tried to come to the rescue of Partial Preterism after Dr. Norman Geisler reviewed “The Apocalypse Code” book written by Hank Hanegraaff that attacked premillennial theology and those who are looking for the soon return of Jesus in the Rapture.<\/p>\n

I guess someone needed to come to the rescue and bail out Preterism after some of Hank Hanegraaff’s erroneous assumptions were pointed out by Dr. Geisler in his review and some of Hanegraff’s book could not even be fully accepted by preterists. This is the response by Dr. Geisler to Steve Gregg’s apparent defense of partial preterism.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this article Dr. Geisler is brilliant and often demolishes the arguments of Steve Gregg’s Partial Preterism Theology, often with many of the inconsistent silly arguments of Gregg and other preterists.
\n<\/strong>
\nWhat is quoted bellow are just a few of the many examples given in the full article. Also go to Dr. Norman Geisler website<\/strong> for other topics. Dr. Geisler is a one of the great minds of our time and I highly recommend that Christians consider his teachings.<\/p>\n

A Response to Steve Gregg\u2019s Defense of Hank Hanegraaff\u2019s Partial Preterism<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

By Norman L. Geisler<\/p>\n

My comments will be divided into two basic categories. First of all, several areas in which we are in agreement will be mentioned. Second, comments on numerous points of disagreement with his defense of partial preterism, a view he shares with Hank Hanegraaff, will be discussed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Eleventh, it is amusing that Gregg uses a third century heretical teacher, Origen, as a basis for his amillennial view and dismisses earlier second century orthodox Fathers as a basis for futurism. Further, contrary to Gregg, Renald Showers (in Maranatha, Our Lord, Come!) has demonstrated that the very earliest Fathers believed in an imminent coming of Christ, not just the fourth century Ephraem. This is to say nothing of the inspired writings of the NT which proclaim Christ\u2019s imminent return repeatedly (Jn. 14:1-3; 1 Cor. 1:7-8; 15:51-53; 16:22; Phil. 3:20-21; 4:5; Col. 3:4; 1 Thes. 1:10; 2:19; 4:13-18; 5:9, 23; 2 Thes. 2:1; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; Jas. 5:7-9; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 1 Jn. 2:28-3:2; Jude 21; Rev. 2:25; 3:10; 22:7, 12, 20 ). Passages like \u201cThe Lord is at hand\u201d (Phil. 4:5) and \u201cthe coming of the Lord is at hand\u201d (Jas.5:8) can hardly mean anything other than imminent, unless one is a full preterist and denies a literal future Second Coming, claiming Christ returned in the first century. He summarily dismisses all this with a vague \u201cfor all anyone can say\u201d and a guilt-by-association with the Word of Faith movement!<\/p>\n

Twelfth, after rejecting the early Fathers who were opposed to preterism, Gregg inconsistently appeals to the early Fathers to justify his amillennial views. He speaks of the pretrib beliefs before Ephraem in the fourth century as unsupported by earlier Fathers. Yet, he criticizes futurist who use the early Fathers to support their view (see \u201cSixth\u201d above).<\/p>\n

Thirteenth, he rejects the dispensational belief in a literal restoration of Israel which is firmly based in the historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture (see Geisler, ibid., chap. 15). Yet he claims to hold the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Eighteenth, Gregg dismisses a massive array of unconditional promises that are based on the historical-grammatical interpretation which says that there will be a literal restoration of ethnic Israel to their land (see our Systematic Theology, vol. 4, chaps.14-16). None of the passages he cites deny this future for Israel, and numerous passages he does not cite affirm that there will be one (Gen. 12-17; 2 Sam. 7; Psa. 89; Mt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8; Acts 3:19; Rom. 11, and many more). So strongly are these texts in favor of a literal restoration of the land and throne promises to ethnic Israel that even some non-premills like Vern Poythress and Anthony Hoekema have been forced to acknowledge such a future for Israel. And not to see that Paul is speaking of ethnic Israel in Romans 9-11 (which he calls Israel \u201cmy kinsmen according to the flesh\u201d (9:2) to whom God gave \u201cthe covenants\u201d and \u201cPromises\u201d (9:4) is a bold act of exegetical blindness. And it is this same \u201cIsrael\u201d in this same passage of which Paul says they will be \u201cgrafted into their own olive tree\u201d (11:24) because \u201cthe gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable\u201d (11:29). Ironic as it may seem, a fundamental problem with reformed amillennialism is that it does not believe in unconditional election\u2013at least not for Israel! As for the clear literal truth that Jesus will literally come again with his literal twelve disciples who sit on twelve literal thrones and reign over the literal \u201ctwelve tribes of Israel\u201d (Mt. 19:28), the best Gregg can offer is \u201cthe suggestions\u201d that \u201cthis is not the only way in which Matt. 19:28 can be interpreted.\u201d Of course, it isn\u2019t; there is the spiritualistic way Gregg interprets it as \u201ca present reality.\u201d But this is certainly not the result of the historical grammatical hermeneutic preterists profess to accept. Nor is his contention that Jesus \u201cunambiguously\u201d established His kingdom at His first coming, as any literal understanding of numerous passages reveals (see Matt. 19:28; Acts 1:6-8; 3:19-21; Rom. 11:11-36). For an example of straining out a hermeneutical gnat and swallowing a doctrinal camel, Gregg declares of Revelation 20 that \u201cthe passage says \u2018a thousand years.\u2019 It does not say, \u2018a literal thousand years.\u2019\u201d The passage also says \u201cthe Devil\u201d (v. 2) and not \u201ca literal Devil,\u201d but does this give us warrant for denying a literal Devil. It also speaks of \u201cnations\u201d (v. 3), martyrs (v. 4), \u201cheaven\u201d (v. 1), and even \u201cJesus\u201d (v. 4). But surely all these are literal. Sure, there are figures of speech used in the text like \u201ckey\u201d (v. 1), but the literal method of interpretation has always allowed for figures of speech about literal realities (see ibid., chap. 13). It simply insists that the figures of speech and symbols are about literal realities (cf. Rev. 1:20)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nineteenth, when confronted with the obviously literal land promises to Abraham\u2019s descendants (Gen. 13-15), Gregg replies, \u201cI don\u2019t find the word \u2018literal\u2019 in any of the passages cited.\u201d Yet, he later says these literal promises were literally fulfilled in the days of Joshua\u2013something that could not be true since they are repeated after Joshua\u2019s time (Jer. 11:5; Amos 9:14-15; Acts 1:6-8; Acts 3:19-21; Rom. 11). As for insisting on the use of the word \u201cliteral\u201d to determine whether a passage is literal, I would suggest that he look at the death and resurrection of Jesus passages again. The last time I looked the word \u201cliteral\u201d was not in the resurrection accounts. Nor do I find it in Genesis 1-3. But there again, consistency of hermeneutic is not a primary characteristic of the preterist position. Further, it is far from \u201cclear\u201d that Heb. 4 or Gal. 4 teaches there is no ethnic fulfillment of the ethnic promises to Israel. On the contrary, it is a denial of both God\u2019s unconditional grace and of the historical-grammatical interpretation of numerous passages already mentioned. Just because Abraham has a spiritual seed does not mean there are no promises for his ethnic offspring.<\/p>\n

Twentieth, as to the promise that the land promises to Israel would be \u201cforever,\u201d Gregg says two things: 1) The Hebrew word for \u201cforever\u201d (olam) does not always mean eternal. While this is true, it is also true that it can. And when it does not, it certainly means a long period of time. But Israel has never occupied all the land designated in these promises for a long period of time. As all good interpreters know, the meaning of a word is discovered by its context. And the context of Psalm 89:37 declares that the Davidic covenant will be \u201cestablished forever like the moon.\u201d And the last time I looked the moon was still in the sky! 2) Greggs wrongly assumes God\u2019s promises to Abraham and David were conditional, but they clearly were not. Abraham was not even conscious when God made a unilateral unconditional promise to him (in Gen. 15:12), and Psalm 89:31-36 declares that even \u201cif they break my statutes,\u201d God promised \u201cNevertheless My loving kindness I will not utterly take from him, nor allow My faithfulness to fail. My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David: His seed will endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me.\u201d As Paul said of this same God, \u201cIf we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself\u201d (2 Tim. 2:13). God has not given them back the land yet, but will in the future when the remnant returns to Him (e.g., see Gen. 13:17 and Deut. 30:16-20).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In brief, Gregg\u2019s attempt to rescue the partial preterist position he shares with Hank Hanegraaff is a failure. It rests upon a methodologically unorthodox way of interpreting Scripture. If this same method were used on the Gospel narratives of the resurrection of Christ, the preterist would also be theologically unorthodox. Thus, while partial preterism itself is not heretical, its hermeneutic is unorthodox, and if applied consistently, would lead to heresy, as indeed it does in full preterism.<\/p>\n

Full article<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Apparently Steve Gregg tried to come to the rescue of Partial Preterism after Dr. Norman Geisler reviewed “The Apocalypse Code” book written by Hank Hanegraaff that attacked premillennial theology and those who are looking for the soon return of Jesus in the Rapture. I guess someone needed to come to the rescue and bail out […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[46,38,88,10,12],"tags":[53,352,57,6,114,344,55,345,130,52],"class_list":["post-1581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aberrantheretical-teaching","category-bible-prophecy-teachers","category-discernment","category-rapture","category-second-coming","tag-bible-prophecy","tag-discernment","tag-heresy","tag-israel","tag-logic","tag-rapture","tag-revelation","tag-second-coming","tag-theology","tag-word-of-faith"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pawsE-pv","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thepropheticyears.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}