#1 of the 12 Cat got your tongue James?
Historical and creedal arguments
triablogue.blogspot.com
"[A] Will The Real Christian Please Stand Up ... Please Stand Up ... Please Stand Up ...: Above we noted that the implication of Dennis' statement about his doctrine being a radical departure from "contemporary Christianity" means that since he holds that his position is "biblical" then "Contemporary Christianity" is a radical departure from "biblical Christianity."[3] So then, the "contemporary Christians" are a new species which has evolved upon the landscape of the history of theology. Since "contemporary" means "of the same time or age" then we must be the mutated species the likes which have never been seen before. Our beliefs in a future return of Christ, a future bodily resurrection, a future judgment of mankind, and of reigning with Christ in a not yet heaven, are new kids on the block, right? Dennis, and other Hyper-Preterists like to say that they are a radical departure from contemporary Christianity. So, this should mean that these beliefs mentioned above do not have historical precedence. After all, if virtually every Christian since recorded time has held to the above beliefs then how is Hyper-Preterism a departure from contemporary Christianity? Wouldn't it be correct, if we can show that the above beliefs have been held by virtually every Christian, post apostolic era,[4] then wouldn't it be more correct to say that Hyper-Preterism is a "radical departure from historic Christianity?"
To set up the debate as Dennis has is to imply that Hyper-Preterism has departed from a modern paradigm. But if we can show that the above beliefs have been held throughout the centuries, by every orthodox Christian, then my above comments about the idea of "Christianity," which everyone has held (Muslim's, Atheist's, et al.) to, make the Hyper-Preterist's claim a very strange one indeed. Since it is accepted that "Christianity" is, among other things, a system of thought which adheres to the teachings found in the Bible, and if my inference from Dennis' statement is correct, then what is "Christianity?" The Hyper-Preterist expects us to believe that (upon my analysis) what has been referred to as "Christianity" is actually a "radical departure" from Christianity, and this new movement (one could say, contemporary movement) is really what Christianity has taught and believed, though no Christians (until recently) have taught and believed it (except for the Apostles, if the HPs are correct)!
Let's do a brief survey and see what history has to say about this:
Clement of Rome (ca. 81-95):
24.1 "Let us consider, beloved, how the Master continually proves to us that there will be a future resurrection, of which He has made the first-fruits, by raising the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.[5]
42.3 ..."they went forth is the assurance of the Holy Spirit preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God is coming."[6]
Zoker and James (Jude's Grandsons):
In a preserved work from Hegesippus, Eusubius tells us about how these two Christians (the Grandsons) answered a query about Christ's Kingdom: they "explained that it was neither of the world or earthly, but heavenly and angelic, and it would be at the end of the world, when He would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward every man according to his deeds."[7]
The Didache: In this early Church manual (circa 110 a.d.) we read, "Gather it [the Church] together in its holiness from the four winds to thy Kingdom which thou hast prepared for it... Let grace come and let this world pass away."[8]
Ignatius: At the beginning of the second century Ignatius was taken as a prisoner to Rome. He wrote letters, here are some excerpts: "...who also was truly raised from the dead when His Father raised Him up, as in the same manner His Father shall raise up in Christ Jesus us who believe in Him, without whom we have no true life.[9]
The last one I'll cite (though there are many more quotes I could give, see Hill) is Polycarp. Briefly after the end of the first century Polycarp wrote a letter, in it he said: "[Jesus is the one] 'whom all breath serves,' who is coming as 'Judge of the living and of the dead...'"[10]
Now, the above men lived in the times of those who lived through 70 AD. They could talk to, and discuss things with, those with first hand knowledge of what the Apostles believed. Indeed, in some cases these men are family members of inspired writers. Amazingly, "Christianity" had "radically departed" from "biblical Christianity" with a few short years! All these men "just missed" the resurrection and the return of Christ to judge the living and the dead. So, it appears as if "contemporary Christianity" back then was the same, in these respects, as "contemporary Christianity" is today. Furthermore, in the oldest non-canonical creed we read:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.[11]
And so it appears that a creed, which identified what "Christians" believed 50 years after the New Testament was written, was a radical departure from "biblical Christianity." So when pagans called these men "Christians" what they didn't know was that these men held to a "radical departure" from Christianity. It also seems odd that not one apostate ever wrote that these so-called "Christians" had distorted the teachings of the apostles. Certainly there were men who no longer held to the faith but had sat under the preaching of, say, Paul. All one needed to do was to say, "Nooo you stupid ninnies, the resurrection and the final judgment already happened! Why are you distorting what the apostles taught?" Well, I admit that the last part was conjecture, but it makes me scratch my head.
Hyper-Preterism, therefore, expects us to believe that what has been referred to as "Christianity" throughout the ages is really a "radical departure" from "biblical Christianity" and this "radical departure" took place almost immediately! Very well then, what is "Christianity?"
Since HPism has asked us to believe that "contemporary" Christianity is a "radical departure" from "biblical Christianity," and since I've shown that historic "Christianity" holds to the same views as "contemporary Christianity" on these issues which caused the HPist to say that his position is a "radical departure" from "contemporary Christianity," then we can agree that it is at least these doctrines (the ones the HPist holds which break common ground with us) which define "Christianity." Of course things like: "believing in Jesus as the only mediator between God and man," and "there is but one God," and "within the Godhead there are three persons who are all God" are things which define "Christianity" as well. But(!) it can't be these confessions alone which define "Christianity." That is because "contemporary Christians" and HPs both hold to these beliefs. But if this were all one needs to hold the honorific title of "Christian" then why would Dennis say that HPism is a "radical departure" from "contemporary Christianity?" So, it is crystal clear that Dennis (and HPism) take these other beliefs (along with the traditional affirmations of God, salvation, etc.,) to constitute what defines "Christianity."
Another problem arises, though. Not all HPs agree on what to make of these other doctrines. In the first case, regarding as to why so many Christians would abandon the true teaching of Scripture, we have many different stories. Russell says that there was a rapture and all the "true Christians" were taken from the earth. Max King writes that it is because of the Hellinization of the early Church. Some have argued that people burned the writings of the early "biblical Christians." And, some have tried to show that the above early "Christians" really had traces of HPism running through their works and letters.[12] The basic fact to glean here, though, is that HPists see a problem. I think this intuitive response which leads HPists to having to give an answer to Church history is a little more telling than some may think. Secondly, regarding the resurrection, there are divergent views. Max King offers a "collective body" story about the resurrection.[13] But Ed Stevens says he doesn't apply this.[14] Noe and Harden also disagree. So which position is "biblical?" Does King or Stevens "radically depart" from "Christianity?" What is Christianity!? Thirdly, regarding the millennium, there are different views. Russell says that it could not be a 40 year period while others fit it between 30 and 70 AD; still others say that it was between 70 and 73 AD or between 70 AD and 132 AD. Who's radically departing here? Fourthly, not all HPs agree on taking the Lord's Supper (since the bible says that we proclaim His death until He comes by taking the Lord's supper). Fifthly, HPs are not in agreement on what happens to us after we die. So, what is it, exactly, to not radically depart from Christianity? The HPist is telling us that everyone else has been wrong, but they're right. We'll examine this claim later." |
