This is our last in the critique of Dr. Edward
Hinson’s article referred to in previous posts.
He lists several items as implications.
We ask, Are These Practical Implications of
Most of these are commonly believed by all futurists as serious implications to the Preterism or fulfilled Bible prophecy.
Some of them are outright contradictions of texts which should be common knowledge for Bible students.
Destroys the Literal Meaning of the Bible
Dr. Hinson argues that a fulfilled coming of Christ at AD 70 destroys the literal meaning of the Bible. He claims that once one argues that language of prophecy cannot be taken literally, denial of other major doctrines of the Bible follow.
As examples he offers the literal interpretation of the creation, flood, virgin birth of Christ, and Christ’s death and resurrection. First, there are more futurists who deny one or more on that list than do Preterists.
However, the real implication here is that the article concludes that Preterism interprets all Bible prophecy as non-literal. This is not true. Context determines it, and time is certainly a matter of context.
Preterism no more takes all Bible prophecy figuratively than does a Dispensationalist take it all literally, even when the latter claims they have a literal hermeneutic. They are simply forced by the text and context in many places to deviate from their stated hermeneutic.
Past Fulfillment Robs the Church of Confident Expecation in the Future
Hinson assumes that God goes completely out of business once he fulfills a prophecy. If that were the case, then would that mean that when if all were future and God fulfilled it God would have no interaction, intervention into the lives of post Parousia saints. Its ludicrous.
It is the doctrine of hope fulfilled destroys hope. Granting or fulfilling promises do not destroy them but allow them to be experienced and fulfilled in ways the promise could not.
A promise of a new automobile is not the same as receiving it. Once received however, one can make a lot more trips and enjoy it’s comforts than was possible without it.
The promise of forgiveness is not the same as forgiveness. Further, when a promise is fulfilled, the Bible says it is a tree of life, (Prov. 13:12, 19).
I presume following Dr. Hinson’s logic, that living in the New Heavens and new earth is merely “making the best of it.” Although the text says:
- the nations walk in the kingdom and bring their honor and glory into it
- they continually eat of the tree of life
- they are healed by the monthly yielding of heavenly fruit
- they live free from the curse of the law, serving God day and night
- They see the Lord’s face with his name written on their foreheads
- They receive light from God and reign forever and ever
- they are blessed and at rest from their labors
- They rejoice in the joy of the Lord
- They sit with Abraham Isaac and Jacob
- There is no more death, pain, sorry or crying
- The tabernacle of God is with men
3. Deprives Israel of her future.
Israel’s future included the blessings of Daniels’ prophecy, (9:24–27). Israel received all these blessings in 70 AD. Not a single one was denied. The charge of anti-semitism is addressed in the previous post. The “Babylon” of Revelation is Jerusalem.
5. Denies the power of Christ by Trying to Bring the Kingdom Without the King.
This again is sophistry. We affirm Christ came in his kingdom, Matt. 16:27, 28; Lk. 21:31; Matt. 25:31; 2 Tim. 4:1. However, we deny it is a visible kingdom or coming, (Luke 17:20), yet we affirm it is real.
Before Jesus’ incarnation he existed invisibly with the Father. God made a trip down into Egypt on a cloud, (Isa. 19:1). No one saw it with their eyes. Did that deny God’s power to destroy Egypt at the time or nullify God’s power in anyway because he was not visible to the physical eye? We think not.