The Anti-Church Movement
By Jonathan M. Companik
Preterism and the Church: Biblical View of Heaven and the New Covenant
> You need to read Mathison’s book, which came out recently (When
> Shall These Things Be?). I read the first two chapters, and the first,
> written by Gentry, is a very good defense of using the creeds
> against hyper-preterism. Wilson also had a chapter in there about
> ecclesiastical authority that looks good.
I’m in chapter four right now.
I consider the first two chapters to be very strong. Three (Pratt’s) was somewhat disappointing, but he still made a couple of significant points. For example, along the lines of Jerry’s excellent post concerning Leithart’s book, “From Silence to Song”, with regard to the relationship between Zion and Moriah, David and Solomon, the Tabernacle and the Temple, Dr. Pratt points out the already / not yet eschatological fulfillment of post-exilic Israel.
God prophesies eschatological restoration, but many prophecies rely on historical contingencies, and the conditions in this case were not met by Israel. After the initial post-exilic fulfillment (Israel returning to the land), we find in Ezra and Nehemiah that Israel, as a nation, has still not repented of its sins. We come to the prophet Daniel (post-exile), and instead of a jubilant Daniel, we find a prophet covered in sackcloth and ashes upon hearing the news that God is going to delay eschatological blessing for a period of 70 (Babylonian exile) x 7 (490 yrs.)
Four hundred and ninety years was given them to “finish the transgression”; “make an end of sin”; “make reconciliation for iniquity”; “bring in everlasting righteousness”; and they still did not repent. Instead, they are cut out of the Olive Tree (Rom.11).
We still have the judgment-coming of 70 A.D., and the prophecies concerning it all coming true in precise manner as they were described in the Olivet Discourse, but the historical times of refreshing / restoration / restitution that Peter says will come upon the Jews if they would only repent (Acts 3:19-21) does not come to pass. The judgment part takes place, but the blessing part is lost due to Israel’s rejection of Messiah.
These times of refreshing are still to come (on a cosmic scale), as reported by the prophets (Acts 3:19). Hyper-Preterists would like to discuss this in terms of a subjective, inward, and mystical “refreshing”, but that ignores the very historical, geographical description and context in which these prophecies were couched originally. I hardly call the widespread, systematic persecution of Christians by Vespasian, Domitian, Hadrian, Trajan, etc. post-70 to be “times of refreshing”.
The fulness of these “times of refreshing” will come when Amos’s and Ezekiel’s universal Temple (Ezek.40-48) contains far more Christians than Pagans, and finally when “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil.2:10-11).
From the Divine viewpoint, both the judgment and the times of refreshing are one and the same, as they are fulfilled in the heavenly event of the Great White Throne Judgment; so that at the end of history as we know it (currently marred and mangled by sin), it can truly be said that Christ came to separate the wheat and the tares, even though every man on earth will bow the knee to the true King of Israel.
As Jerry has suggested (and you have reconfirmed, Donny), 70 A.D and the end of the historical curse on earth do not constitute two separate and distinct eschatological fulfillments, but in fact constitute one and same Eschatological Fulfillment.
It is every generation’s job within the Church to seek to hasten the coming of the Day of Christ.
Yours in Christ,
Subject: Re: The Anti-Church movement (Hyper-Preterism)
Where: Covenant_Eschatology Yahoo Group
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:03:46 -0600
From: “Jonathan M. Companik” <email@example.com>
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
- 29 Mar 2004
So, this is Jonathan’s “Flavor of the Week” now? OK. It is strange though that Jonathan chooses to use the term “hyper-preterist” since at one time he was one. He perhaps is the first preterist to return to futurism. Good for him. He always liked to be right. ed burley
- 30 Mar 2004
Quote: “The Authoritative, Spirit-led, Christ-established, Apostolic Church defines Orthodoxy, in accordance with Scriptura alone as the ultimate source of inspired Truth.” -Jonathan Companik Isn’t spirit-led truth inspired truth? Jonathan seems to be suggesting that the Church itself is inspired. If this is indeed the case, he should kiss the Pope’s ring. Only God’s Word is inspired truth and only God’s Word defines Orthodoxy…not the Church! The Church fathers “can and do err”. They say so themselves, and thus point us back to the Scriptures. If the creeds and confessions are “perfect” and inspired, then we have elevated them to that of God inspired Scripture. This would make these human documents idols! Christ did establish the Church, but once the Church deviates from Scripture, it over-stepps it’s boundries. I would remind Jonathan that Sola Scriptura is defined as Scripture alone plus NOTHING else. Sola Scriptura = Solo Scriptura! Can we learn from the Church fathers? Yes. Is systematizing our faith good? Yes. Are the creeds and confessions inspired and perfect? ABSOLUTELY NOT! To elevate these documents to that being equal with Scripture is idolatry. Quote: “It is every generation’s job within the Church to seek to hasten the coming of the Day of Christ.” -Jonathan Companik If this is true, then God is not sovereign and is dependent upon man to “hasten” Christ’s coming. This line of reasoning robs Jesus Christ of His complete work of redemption. Jonathan has nullified the Gospel message and brought dishonor to Christ by turning from Holy inspired Scripture to that of the collective writings of sincere and fallible men. The confessions and creeds have “erred”. May our comitment be to Christ and His Church within these Scriptural boundries. Amen? –Batman
- 31 Mar 2004
Not unlike Seraiah and Mathison and maybe Sproul Jr.’s (although I GUARANTEE his dad doesn’t see Sola Scriptura this way!) definition of Sola Scriptura. There is a reason for this of course. Since these men cannot refute Preterism by the Scriptures alone, and must always go to the creeds and confessions… If they place the early church fathers on par with the Scriptures, and convince you that this is Sola Scriptura, then they’ve won. I mean, why bother going to your Bible when it’s all been sorted out already? And now in its new convenient condensed absolute truth Reader’s Digest version – The Creed. From Seraiah’s book(p.198): “When the Church examines those Scriptures, she explains what the Spirit leads her to see by declaring those truths in creeds…they are genuinely authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures.” That sure tastes lukewarm to me. Think I’ll… Another funny thing about these guys is – they disagree with the early church fathers too; where they choose. And so it goes something like this: Where these men agree with the early church fathers, well that’s where the Holy Spirit must have been leading them. And on the points where they disagree… must not have been Holy Spirit led. JEGjr
- 01 Apr 2004
Isn’t it interesting that when Jonathan was one of those “Hyper-preterists” he was determined to convince everyone else of how bright he was on this topic? Looking at where he [temporarily if you ask me] stands now, it looks like he just couldn’t convince himself.
- 01 Apr 2004
Isn’t it interesting that when Jonathan was one of those “Hyper-preterists” he was determined to convince everyone else of how bright he was on this topic? Looking at where he [temporarily if you ask me] stands now, it looks like he just couldn’t convince himself. RMW
Date: 20 Sep 2006
Wow. You are a total whack job. This website is full of total whack jobs. You embarass me by using the name COMPANIK.
If you ever want to come back to the COMPANIK family, give me a ring………