As a Protestant, I’m comfortable with a certain amount of theological diversity. In eschatology, the only position I consider to be out-of-bounds is preterism.
Amen to that!
B”H
As a Protestant, I’m comfortable with a certain amount of theological diversity. In eschatology, the only position I consider to be out-of-bounds is preterism.
Amen to that!
B”H
Why? What about partial-preterism?
out of bounds means what?
not a christian, or just probably not correct?
doomed to hell or just without scriptural justification?
And presumably he means commonly held positions, not that any possible position other than preterism is OK, what about Jesus-comes-back-as-a-tellytubbyism, for example? Thus he is recognising preterism is commonly held by christians but denying it is potentially valid.
I’m glad he is comfortable with diversity though, i’d hate for him to be uncomfortable. ;-)
If someone thinks Jesus has already returned, &c., that’s the the Hymenaen heresy.
so what does it mean to be out of bounds? just that you can be legitimately called a heretic?
It means heresy is out of bounds.
On comment section of Hays’ blog, someone asked about full or partial preterism, and he said full preterism is what he had in mind not partial
que?
Steelwheels: If you’re asking me I’d say it depends on which parts of preterism the partial preterist affirms. I suppose the common partial preterist view is that all prophecy except the return of Jesus was fulfilled in the 1st century. I think they’re dead wrong and don’t have an exegetical/historical leg to stand on, but I suppose that they wouldn’t necessarily be heretics.
Jonathan: Out of bounds means that the one affirming preterism (the kind that says Jesus returned in the first century) is a heretic (who is obviously probably not correct and whose position certainly is without scriptural justification) and therefore outside the Christian community and therefore no longer properly Christian and therefore doomed to hell apart from repentance.
Nate: Yup.