(IPA, Inc., 2005). “There is an increasingly surfacing division current within preterist studies between the “heaven now” denomination and the “heaven when you die” one. Such is to be expected. Ian D. Harding has recently penned Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70 (335 pp.), published by Ed Stevens’ publication arm, International Preterist Association, Inc. The book is endorsed by Arthur Melanson and Walt Hibbard on the back cover. It is important to the preterist movement because it is the first major work noting the differences within the preterist camps.
[A]s Harding himself states, the book is directly written to those preterists who hold to what has been called the “heaven now” view (Harding, xiv). This view, in his words, if true “takes away all meaning of language” (107). It is to be admitted that the view expounded upon by Max King in Cross and Parousia of Christ and the view represented here are two completely different approaches within preterism. They both operate from the same framework, of course, but the agreement ends there and this book makes it clearer than any other I have read.
The book does not pretend to be a “scholarly” piece. The author never quotes authors like King and others that espouse the opposing view. He simply interacts with the other view by stating something like, “[s]ome preterists say that the glorification promises were fulfilled at the Parousia in the living pre-Parousia Christians while they remained on earth” (107). That would be the view of Max King, more or less, and those who align themselves with his approach more or less. There is not much discussion about the meaning of “body” from its corporate aspect. Indeed, much of what Harding does is simply assume that “glorification”, “made alive” and “catch away” are robbed of meaning if not taken literally. Whether or not he proves this is another thing. ”
“The seventh trumpet announced the completion of God’s Old Covenant with Israel and the announcement that the Kingdom of Christ had begun (Rev. 11:15). Yet their remains a final trumpet, which we might call the “eighth”.”
· A parousia of Christ
· The Final Parousia of Christ
· Judgment on Judaism
· Final Judgment
· Fulfils Matthew 24
· Fulfils Matthew 25; 1Thess. 4; 1Corinthians 15
· Ends the Old Covenant Age
· End of the Age
· Proceeds from preaching the Gospel to Jews first throughout the oichoumene (Empire)
· Proceeds from the making of disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:18-20)
· Suffering, misery and death
· Suffering, misery and death done away with (Rev. 21:3-4)
· Satan is bound
· Satan is damned
· The beginning of Christ’s Kingdom
· The culmination of Christ’s Kingdom (Eph. 1:10; 1Cor. 15:24)
“It is true that hyper-preterists can, with an overactive imagination, reinterpret any verse to fit its conceptual box (something it shares in common with Gnosticism and Arianism). It must be pointed out that hyper-preterists cannot show that the orthodox paradigm is irrational. Remember, so long as there is one verse that could logically be interpreted as still referring to a Second Coming then reason alone cannot decide which paradigm to choose. Given these facts, I can only conclude that there is not one rational reason to prefer hyper-preterism to orthodoxy, but there are plenty of reasons to continue to trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church, as revealed in the Creeds.”
David Green: Potentially Gentry – Preterist CosmosEven though hyper-preterists are “outside of the faith of the historic Christian church,” and even though hyper-preterists reject “the faith of our fathers,” and even though “hyper-preterists are adrift on the tides of wholesale theological change,” even though hyper-preterists have broken away from “the anchor of historic Christianity,” and even though hyper-preterists stand against the very “fundamentals of traditional Christianity,” and even though hyper-preterists are undercutting the “foundations of Christian theology,” hyper-preterists are nevertheless, “potentially” RIGHT.
Press Clippings: Hanegraaff and Schmidt vs Tommy Ice on interpretation of Revelation on MSNBC’s ‘Scarborough Country’ FREDERICK SCHMIDT, SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY: What this kind of reading of scripture really represents is a sectarian and fairly narrow approach to the Book of Revelation in particular. And what it invites the reader to suppose is that someone in the 1st century wrote a book that was unintelligible to the people of the 1st century, but would be intelligible to people of the 20th century, which is just not a plausible reading of the book. SCARBOROUGH: Thomas Ice, do you agree? THOMAS ICE, AUTHOR, “CHARTING THE END TIMES”: No, I don‘t. .. HANEGRAAFF: So, Jesus uses the language of the Old Testament prophets and now applies it to a near future event, which is the fall of Jerusalem. So, he uses final eschaton language and applies it to a near future event. In fact, if you read the Book of Revelation, it‘s the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show him, his servants, the things that must soon take place. Soon means soon. Soon does not mean far.
LaHaye, Hanegraaff: The End: Best-selling books don’t see it alike – “It’s about much more than selling books, scholars say. The high-stakes publishing battle between the two men comes on the heels of the millennial fervor surrounding the year 2000, and feeds a stream of fear rippling just below the surface of public consciousness. ” “To Hanegraaff, Revelation was written before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple to encourage persecuted Christians. He says the “end-time model presented in Left Behind is hermeneutically false in that it attributes powers to the beast that belong only to God, but it is historically false because it places the beast in the 21st century.”