Geek Eclectic
December 11th 2007, 06:23 PM
Last night, the audio quality of the debate between Hanegraaff and Hitchcock was very poor, so I don't think many people made it all the way through the debate. I made it through about half of it, but it was difficult just to make out the words, much less retain any of it. Today's post on the "Parchment & Pen" blog that is associated with the same organization that hosted the debate features an mp3 sound file of Dr. Mark Hitchcock speaking on Preterism and why he takes issue with Preterist interpretations of passages.
Click here (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/12/11/an-introduction-to-preterism/) to get to the post in which the sound file is presented. He goes over the "this generation" statement quite a bit. He discusses the differences between full preterism, partial preterism, idealism, and historicism. I think he's mostly accurate on that point, though I think he could have been a bit stronger in his condemnation of full preterism as heresy. He actually said it might be heterodox, though in my understanding the term heterodox is supposed to be used for views that are wrong, but which do not deny any of the essentials set forth in the Nicene Creed. A Calvinist, for example, would see Arminians as heterodox, but pelagians as heretical. The term heterodox would be far too generous.
I'm really curious to know what other Preterists who are better-versed on the subject than myself have to say about this speech. There are some things he says that I think are wrong given my Preterist beliefs, but I'm not entirely sure how to respond if I was confronted with them, so any help in this would be greatly appreciated.
Click here (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/12/11/an-introduction-to-preterism/) to get to the post in which the sound file is presented. He goes over the "this generation" statement quite a bit. He discusses the differences between full preterism, partial preterism, idealism, and historicism. I think he's mostly accurate on that point, though I think he could have been a bit stronger in his condemnation of full preterism as heresy. He actually said it might be heterodox, though in my understanding the term heterodox is supposed to be used for views that are wrong, but which do not deny any of the essentials set forth in the Nicene Creed. A Calvinist, for example, would see Arminians as heterodox, but pelagians as heretical. The term heterodox would be far too generous.
I'm really curious to know what other Preterists who are better-versed on the subject than myself have to say about this speech. There are some things he says that I think are wrong given my Preterist beliefs, but I'm not entirely sure how to respond if I was confronted with them, so any help in this would be greatly appreciated.