I do not follow CrossPolitic. I’m not a Fight, Laugh, & Feast network member, and I have no first-hand experience with what goes on in their Facebook group. However, based on a blog post and video from Pastor Toby Sumpter, it appears that a few guys have pressed them to speak out against Gary DeMar, who is sliding into the heresy of hyper-preterism, and he seems to be annoyed with the push-back. He writes:
As you have noted, the hermeneutic that is defined by a certain understanding of the "time texts" is the tail wagging the dog, as evident in the bizarre interpretations of passages regarding and the contorting of theological references to the resurrection of the body - concepts not foreign to the 2nd Temple Judaic communities and theological framework with which Jesus and Paul aligned themselves and confirmed.
My larger critique has been that this seriously flawed hermeneutic - a particular perception regarding the "time texts" as ultimate - naturally leads some otherwise orthodox preterists - like DeMar and those who would agree with him - into full preterism, as many on full preterist boards will testify. My perception is that many apologists for partial preterism contra dispensational/SDA enthusiasm are ill grounded in the hermeneutical and exegetical arts and peer reviewed scholarship, and thus employ similar errors to their enemy combatants, affirming a rigid and modernist interpretation of prophetic expectation, but in terms of perceived timing (contra traditional prophetic and apocalyptic interpretation) vice the dispensationalist's anti-apocalyptic and non-progressive nature of fulfillment (contra covenantal - i.e. NT - development and a right understanding of apocalypticism).
So, these partial preterists, also wagging the dog by the tail, force the Olivet language, Pauline expectation, and apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation into an AD 70 timeframe, to be theologically consistent in their contra-dispensational apologetic. Actual scholars, on the other hand, differ with preterists on many or most of those interpretations, because they start with the scholarly pursuit and not the apologetic one, not bound by a simplistic "time text" hermeneutic and fundamentalism. Thus, it becomes difficult to polemically counter Gary, et al, if one accepts this hermeneutic, first adopted to counter "last days madness," vice an exegetical approach rooted in apocalyptic and covenantal theology within the 2nd Temple Judaic milieu.
Have we any wonder, then, as to the influence of Kim Burgess? When one "adopts" the terminus as 70 AD, then one must work out all other matters in that light. We do this in our own eschatological narratives. When, for example, considering what is called "progressive sanctification," is this not worked out with an "end" in view? Glorification? Therefore, since it is quite obvious that "the dead" were not "biologically raised" in 70 AD, then one is forced to reconsider the whole notion - as we did, and we got our cue from one Max King. When you are convinced that 70 AD is "the end" (the only end spoken of in the NT); that "the end" Paul mentions in 1Co 15, is the same "end of the age" in Matthew 24 (which it is), then you are forced to reconsider "resurrection of the dead."
Now, if "the end of the age" in Mt 24 is the same "end" in 1 Cor 15 (and 1Th 4), and since "Resurrection of the dead" is biological (which it is), then, logically, one cannot exhaust the entirety of Mt 24 to 70 AD. Can't be done. One cannot express the term "the latter times" to that "generation," either. Paul is plain as day: "the end of the ages have come upon us" (using a Perfect Tense). Peter is equally plain: "The end of all things has drawn nigh" (using a Perfect Tense). We must, once and for all, get rid of the notion that these expressions speak of a very small sliver of a few years time, but rather speak of the Advent of Messiah, enthroned, and that because of this, "the ends of the ages have come upon us" are REMAIN upon us until "the end." There will be no more covenants. No more Moses', and no more intervals for a David, or a Jacob, or a Nehemiah. Jesus is the Last. Repent. The Kingdom has drawn nigh. Next stop: resurrection of the dead, the End.
Outstanding, Jason.
Well done, Jason.
As you have noted, the hermeneutic that is defined by a certain understanding of the "time texts" is the tail wagging the dog, as evident in the bizarre interpretations of passages regarding and the contorting of theological references to the resurrection of the body - concepts not foreign to the 2nd Temple Judaic communities and theological framework with which Jesus and Paul aligned themselves and confirmed.
My larger critique has been that this seriously flawed hermeneutic - a particular perception regarding the "time texts" as ultimate - naturally leads some otherwise orthodox preterists - like DeMar and those who would agree with him - into full preterism, as many on full preterist boards will testify. My perception is that many apologists for partial preterism contra dispensational/SDA enthusiasm are ill grounded in the hermeneutical and exegetical arts and peer reviewed scholarship, and thus employ similar errors to their enemy combatants, affirming a rigid and modernist interpretation of prophetic expectation, but in terms of perceived timing (contra traditional prophetic and apocalyptic interpretation) vice the dispensationalist's anti-apocalyptic and non-progressive nature of fulfillment (contra covenantal - i.e. NT - development and a right understanding of apocalypticism).
So, these partial preterists, also wagging the dog by the tail, force the Olivet language, Pauline expectation, and apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel and Revelation into an AD 70 timeframe, to be theologically consistent in their contra-dispensational apologetic. Actual scholars, on the other hand, differ with preterists on many or most of those interpretations, because they start with the scholarly pursuit and not the apologetic one, not bound by a simplistic "time text" hermeneutic and fundamentalism. Thus, it becomes difficult to polemically counter Gary, et al, if one accepts this hermeneutic, first adopted to counter "last days madness," vice an exegetical approach rooted in apocalyptic and covenantal theology within the 2nd Temple Judaic milieu.
Thank you, Jason.
Have we any wonder, then, as to the influence of Kim Burgess? When one "adopts" the terminus as 70 AD, then one must work out all other matters in that light. We do this in our own eschatological narratives. When, for example, considering what is called "progressive sanctification," is this not worked out with an "end" in view? Glorification? Therefore, since it is quite obvious that "the dead" were not "biologically raised" in 70 AD, then one is forced to reconsider the whole notion - as we did, and we got our cue from one Max King. When you are convinced that 70 AD is "the end" (the only end spoken of in the NT); that "the end" Paul mentions in 1Co 15, is the same "end of the age" in Matthew 24 (which it is), then you are forced to reconsider "resurrection of the dead."
Now, if "the end of the age" in Mt 24 is the same "end" in 1 Cor 15 (and 1Th 4), and since "Resurrection of the dead" is biological (which it is), then, logically, one cannot exhaust the entirety of Mt 24 to 70 AD. Can't be done. One cannot express the term "the latter times" to that "generation," either. Paul is plain as day: "the end of the ages have come upon us" (using a Perfect Tense). Peter is equally plain: "The end of all things has drawn nigh" (using a Perfect Tense). We must, once and for all, get rid of the notion that these expressions speak of a very small sliver of a few years time, but rather speak of the Advent of Messiah, enthroned, and that because of this, "the ends of the ages have come upon us" are REMAIN upon us until "the end." There will be no more covenants. No more Moses', and no more intervals for a David, or a Jacob, or a Nehemiah. Jesus is the Last. Repent. The Kingdom has drawn nigh. Next stop: resurrection of the dead, the End.