mens hair loss

Two Guys and A Bible-11.23.2010

by Michael J Loomis on November 23, 2010

Tonight on Two Guys and a Bible, William Bell and Don K. Preston graciously offered a refutation of Hyper-Preterism as was presented on the first two editions of our new program Preterist Perspectives. A view that has no ongoing fulfillment beyond the time of the end(ad70) and that the promises made to Israel were limited to them in the strictest sense.

www.thepodcast.org – www.unravelingtheend.com – www.fulfilled.tvwww.ad70.tv – www.ad70.net – www.whatispreterism.com

Thank you for making this preterist podcast series part of your preterist media library.

Play

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }

futuredoughnut November 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm

HMmmmmmm silence from ROE interesting 😛

Rich November 29, 2010 at 6:46 am

Just listened to Don and William’s presentation this morning on the way into work. I have to say upfront that I disagree with Rivers’ conclusion. I also have to say I love Don and Williams’ work. With that said though, I have to say they (Don and William) completely failed in dealing with Rivers’ presentation.

For example, just to make a small couple of points, William, showed that it was about not being of the fleshly line of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob, but by faith (God’s choice). This is true and Rivers’ would agree. Rivers never said that Salvation was by being a physical descendent of Abraham. It is about having the faith of Abraham. But, the distinction between those of the faith and those arguing it was of being a fleshly descendent was between those within the sphere of Abraham’s fleshly line. Rivers presents the same concept as Don and William (and Paul) but limits it to within the physical lineage of Abraham. Both Don and William never dealt with these spheres of operation.

One small point about Don’s argument and his foreigner presentation (just to pick one of his many which all made the same mistake). Notice all the way through, Don kept differentiating between Israel (the 12 tribes) and the “foreigner”. This would be true, but Rivers would say the foreigner came from the other “nations” (plural – Genesis 17:4-6; 20) coming from Abraham’s other descendents. Abraham had more than Isaac, and Isaac had more than Jacob. Don kept asking if “Israel” could differentiate between the tribes of “Israel” and the “nations”. Well, yes they can. But again, the other “nations” (Gentiles), were not from the 12 tribes (Israel), but they were from Abraham. They were from the other descendents from both Abraham and Isaac (and what about the descendents of Lot?). Don maintained this identity crisis all the way through his presentation. He always equated Israel (12 tribes) with Abraham. He completely ignored the other “nations” (plural) that came from Abraham’s other descendants.

Don and William define the sphere of operation as being between the 12 tribes of Israel, and the rest of the world/Gentiles. Rivers places the sphere of operation between the 12 tribes of Israel and Abraham’s other descendents/Gentiles.

I hope Rivers is allowed to respond with another show. Again, while I disagree with Rivers’ conclusions, I admit he is on to something. I was just reading Galatians last night and noticed, once again (I come across problems all the time in Paul’s epistles when using our standard methodology of interpreting Gentiles as we do) a problem with reading Gentiles as a non-descendent of Abraham. Until Rivers got me thinking about the Gentiles from a different perspective, I would merely let those problems slide. But, I cannot do it any longer. Now I want to work them out.

Michael J Loomis November 29, 2010 at 1:50 pm

Rich…The quality of an argument means nothing if the premise is flawed. You can even have a logically valid argument…However that does not make it sound.

Over the last number of months I personally came very close to embracing this position. I didn’t just flirt with it…I quite literally put it on to see if it would fit. I was even beginning to tell people that I was sure it was right. However…Until I sat through both of these two hour presentations that were argued very well mind you that I decided to ultimately reject it. Seriously…I was ready to call myself a Hyper-Preterist. Everything fit in the box very well. No more questions unanswered.

But then the questions began to arise as I started considering the implications of this position.

For God so loved the world(of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever(of that seed that) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Really?

And then there is the question of what the universal Church has been doing for the last 2000 years. Have we been worshiping a god that has no interest outside the tribes of Israel?

And if so…Then to what end?

Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that this view reduces YHWH to a tribal god with no interest in the affairs of humanity outside the genealogy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that liked the smell of grilled red heifer.

If one wants to believe that the original scope of God’s dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:28 that was given to Adam was limited to the borders of Israel then they are more than welcome.

If the New Jerusalem was limited to the 12 tribes then there is no point in the gates not being shut at all. Maybe I’m over-exercising logic here…But if it was limited to them then the gates would be shut once it was filled.

I think ROE has made his point exceedingly clear. 4 hours worth. I personally cannot in good conscience continue giving voice to this view that I and many other believe reduce not only Christianity but also 2000 years of history down to the love story of a tribal god and his chosen bride.

If anyone wants to pursue HP that is fine. But it scared the hell out of me.

Seriously…Consider the implications of HP.

If it’s true…No matter how much good has come from 2000 years of Church history…It’s all been based on a false premise.

ROE is a good friend. I’ve learned a lot from him. However…I think he has gone too far.

Rich November 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Michael,

In case you didn’t read my post clearly, I stated, twice, I disagreed with ROE’s conclusion. But, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t recognized some truths that Preterism doesn’t see. I know there are some as I see some of it myself. I would like to get these things ironed out.

Also, if you thought Don and William addressed ROE’s position and his points, you didn’t listen very well. 🙂 Like I said, I don’t agree with ROE, nor do I believe the Bible limits the offer of salvation to only Abraham’s physical descendents, but Don and William did not address ROE’s points. Maybe you should listen to Don and William again.

In fact, I would love to sit down with you and listen to Don and William again together and I’ll point out where they went off track when trying to deal with ROE’s points and then discuss them. I don’t say or suggest this to try to convince you of ROE’s position, as I don’t accept it myself, but only to get what ROE does have correct and use it to further Preterism. There is a reason you were almost convinced of ROE’s position, and that’s because it does hold some truth in it. These truths need to be brought out and dealt with.

If you wish to decline ROE from any further word that is fine and a right you certainly have. I just hope you aren’t rejecting it all because it “scared” you. Think about that kind of position. You asked me to “consider the implications of HP”. I have, but I’m not going to reject it because it scares me or merely because I don’t like the implications. Those are the majority of the reasons people/futurist reject Preterism.

-Rich

Michael J Loomis November 29, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Yes sir…I did notice that you said you disagreed with him.

I don’t think Don and William needed to deal with ROE’s arguments point by point. The text is pretty clear in what is being stated.

And do they need to deal with ROE’s points if it can be demonstrated that a foundational premise is flawed?

Like a boxer in a video game(Punch-Out) I played when I was a kid named “Glass Joe.” I didn’t waste my time punching every part of his body just because I could. I just simply punched him in his glass jaw over and over again until “KO!”

I don’t think most preterist’s came to this position because of some skilled teacher, or because we need skilled teachers to guide us as to what we need to understand about the scriptures.

If people want to explore this further they are more than welcome. ROE will be more than happy to share with every ear that wants to hear.

I do think that HP has a flawed premise and I’m working on a project that I think will demonstrate that pretty clearly.

Feel free to contact me at feedback@ad70.net if you’d like to sit down together and listen to Don and Williams presentation together. Skype or phone is fine by me.

Rich November 30, 2010 at 6:36 am

Michael/ROE,

I think I might have misspoken. Having listened to Don’s arguments again this morning, I need a clarification. Is ROE’s position (have to go back and listen to his first presentation again) that salvation is limited/offered to only Israel (12 tribes/Jacob), or to Abraham’s descendents? I was operating under the understanding, as I listened to Don, that ROE was arguing it was offered to Abraham’s descendents, which would include more than Israel. If his position includes only Israel (the 12 tribes), than yes, Don was successful in refuting ROE’s position.

Also, I will contact you via email about listening to Don and Williams arguments once I get clarifiation on ROE’s position. I have the feeling I’m going to owe Don a big apology.

Michael J Loomis November 30, 2010 at 9:34 am

I don’t want to misspeak. But I’m pretty sure that ROE would say that the covenants were only for the 12 tribes. That there was a continual narrowing of the focus from Adam to Jacob(Israel). The old covenant was made with the 12 tribes. The new covenant would be a reunification of the 12 tribes.

Which is why Jesus said, “I came ONLY for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

I could be wrong…But I’m pretty sure that’s the nail he spent 4 hours hammering into the coffin.

Rivers…Feel free to correct me if I’ve misspoken.

Mike

futuredoughnut December 2, 2010 at 4:01 am

Gal 3:14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Gal 6:13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
Gal 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Gal 6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
Gal 6:16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: