All comments

Guerrilla Worship - Liverpool Flash Mob

The world has moved on.: Re: Guerrilla Worship -... (24 min ago)

Why YOU Should Plant a Church

The world has moved on.: Re: Why YOU Should Plant a... (1 hour ago)

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?

Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (3 days ago)
Jacob: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Contradictions in the... (4 days ago)

Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth

john doyle: Re: Day One: A Sir Toby's... (4 days ago)

A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren

john doyle: Re: A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian... (4 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (4 days ago)
peter wilkinson: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (4 days ago)
john doyle: Re: Some More General Thoughts... (5 days ago)
Syndicate content

Re: What can an emerging theology learn from preterism?

Re: What can an emerging theology learn from preterism?

So, because you are no longer a preterist and because Jared Coleman is an atheist, believing full preterist theory makes one not a Christian?

The issue, at least for me, is that full-preterism leads to a direct denial of a future bodily resurrection, eradication of death, and new creation. If resurrection already happened, what is left for the believer today? A dualism that borders on Gnosticism. At least in my opinion, bodily resurrection is fundamental to the Christian faith; it is present in the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, the Creeds, the Reformation, and so on. Consider 1Co 15:13, for example: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.” I think to believe that Jesus rose from the dead is also to hope for vindication. This hope is both challenging and absurd to most of the world. What happens when we throw it out and replace it with something else?

I don’t think we should be so dogmatic or “us against them” in discussing theology; that’s definitely not the purpose of Open Source Theology. But I also think we need to draw a line: there are certainly fundamentals to the faith that cannot be discarded. For example, some consider Marcus Borg a Christian, but he denies that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, so is he really a Christian? If Marcus Borg is a Christian, then what in the world is a Christian? Maybe we need to answer these questions before we support or oppose a condemnation of full-preterism.

Andrew made a good point, though. Are we trying to learn from the dogmas of preterism or from the hermeneutics behind preterism? I think the hermeneutics behind preterism have much to offer, but I think some full-preterist doctrines (or denials of doctrines) are dangerous. However, it seems to me most of the full-preterists that come to this site, as well as their opponents, are more interested in their own dogmas than hermeneutics. In other words, they are more interested in bringing individuals from an opposing camp to their own than deconstructing both camps and seeing what makes them tick. Maybe I have the same problem – maybe we all do.

What can an emerging theology learn from preterism? By: Andrew (32 replies) 4 September, 2008 - 13:51