Another site from google search:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&source=hp&ei=KPZeXdb5Doe2tQW-lpbwDQ&q=preterist+on+2+timothy+2:18+preterism&oq=preterist+on+2+timothy+2:18+preterism&gs_
"The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism" by Jim West
*snip*
A fellow pastor of a Reformed congregation informs me that a recent visitor to his congregation was encouraged to sign the guest book. When the service was over and the congregation disbanded, he peered at the guest book and noted the signature of the visitor, followed by a most unusual appendage: his name followed by the word “preterist.”
The visitor could have saved the minister a lot of time from searching the dictionary for the meaning of the word had he signed his name “
Hymenaeus” instead of “preterist.”
What is a “preterist?” And who was Hymenus? The word “preterist” is a grammatical term describing what is “past.” Thus, if our interpretation of the Book of Revelation is that most, if not all, the book is fulfilled, we would be “preterists.” Or, if our interpretation of the first 34 verses of Matthew 24 saw their fulfillment in the A. D. 70 coming of Christ, we would subscribe to the preterist interpretation.
However, in recent years a new expression of preterism has emerged that assigns the Second Coming or Parousia of Christ, the general Resurrection, and the Great White Throne Judgment to the past. In other words,
there are no future prophetic events.
According to this scenario, time will continue on this terrestrial ball forever. Both sin and the earth are everlasting. At death the soul of the believer passes into the presence of God and the soul of the unbeliever (presumably) to judgment—both to be disembodied spirits forever. The advocates of these ideas call themselves “consistent preterists” over against the “inconsistent preterists,” who, it is claimed, fail to face the implications of their position. The so-called “consistent preterist” holds that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A. D. 70, and that the resurrection occurred when Israel was spiritually quickened. Some “consistent preterists” will even claim to be Calvinistic in their soteriology. Consequently, Christians who truly love the doctrines of grace may be taken unawares. There will be the temptation to treat bygones as bygones, to minimize the colossal differences. This amalgamation-temptation threatens to compromise the historic creeds of the church, especially such vital Christian teachings as the resurrection.
Matthew 24
Jesus’ Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 highlights a Hymenaen interpretation versus a true, preterist interpretation. Our Lord com pletes the first part of His sermon with the famous “Time-Text,”—”Verily, verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.” The orthodox preterist interpretation is that everything that occurred before verse 34 saw its fulfillment in that generationthe contemporary generation of Jews. However, the Hymenns merge everything that occurs after verse 34 into the A.D. 70 spiritual coming of Christ. For example, Hymenns argue that even verse 36 is about A.D. 70, when Jesus states, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” The problems with this viewpoint are explained adequately by Marcellus Kik in his
Eschatology of Victory, and the reader is urged to review his arguments. Echoing Kik, we affirm that the designated “that day” does not refer to the days of tribulation for Israel prior to the coming of the Romans. The reason is that “that day” had already been introduced by our Lord earlier, even as far back as the Sermon on the Mount. For example, the Lord tells us that not every one who says unto Him, “Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,” and that “many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Mt. 7:21-23). Earlier in Matthew, the Lord compared Israel’s judgment with some of the historic cities that were notable for wickedness. Christ preached, “But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you.” And again, “But it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee” (verse 22, 24). Christ had already drilled the “that day of judgment” terminology into the heads of the disciples, which they would have understood as including Sodom and Tyre and Sidon on a day other than A.D. 70. Certainly Tyre and Sidon and Sodom were not judged in A.D. 70. In the Matthean account of the Olivet Discourse, “that day” is an explicit reference to the great day when God will judge all past, present, and future generations. Paul also in his sermon to the Greeks on Mars’ Hill preached “a day” that God will judge all men (Athenians included—not just Jews) by that Man Whom He has appointed (Ac. 17:31).
The best commentary on the “that day” terminology of verse 36 is both what follows verse 36 and what flows from verse 36 .
There are several parables that follow verse 36 , the Faithful Servant and Evil Servant (24:45-51), the Wise and Foolish Virgins (25:1-13), and the Talents (25:14-30). This string of Second Coming parables is capped off with the picture of the Son of Man judging the nations “when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory” (25:31). When he comes “all nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the goats” (25:2). Christ’s coming to judge all nations does not merely follow Matthew 24:36 in chronological sequence—it flows from it.
Interestingly, both dispensationalists and Hymenns have adopted an all-or-nothing approach:
the former interpret virtually every coming of Christ prophesied in the New Testament as the Second Coming;
the latter interpret every prophesied coming as Christ’s A.D. 70 spiritual coming. There are then dispensational eschatologists and dispensable eschatologists.
The Centrality of the Resurrection
The cardinal doctrine of the New Testament is the resurrection. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ be not raised up, our faith is vain, our preaching is vain, and we are of all men most miserable. Paul’s thrust is that a dead Christ cannot save and that the church cannot have communion with a Christ who is still in the throes of death. Christ was raised from the dead in order to justify us (Rom. 4:25). Most significantly, it was by Christ’s resurrection that He “was declared to be the Son of God with power. . .” (Rom. 1:4).
The resurrection is not only a blazing advertisement for the verity of Christianity, but the supreme attestation to the Deity of Christ Himself. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity. Scripture even teaches that salvation itself is a resurrection (Jn. 5:24). The purpose of Christ’s resurrection was to justify the whole man—body and soul.
Even the new birth is actually a metaphor for the resurrection instead of the resurrection a metaphor for the new birth.
Our labor is based on the bodily resurrection of Christ too. We are animated to work because of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:58). Our work ethic is not only the (proverbial) “Protestant Work Ethic,” but “the Resurrection Work Ethic.” This is why we abound in the work of the Lord. Our very redemption is portrayed as the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23).
What about Hymenaeus?
The “consistent preterists” (as they charitably define themselves) deal with the resurrection in a manner that parallels two apostolic personalities. We refer to Hymenus and Philetus, whom Paul names in 2 Timothy 2:17. These men were apparently church members (they “named the name of Christ”— verse 17.). They were resurrection preterists and probably preterists in regard to the Second Coming of Christ, too. Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:18 about their belief that “the resurrection is already past.” How could they have been afforded some prestige in the church?
Paul’
s Assessment of Hymenaen Theology
How then should we treat those who embrace Hymennism and yet claim to wear the badge of Christianity? We must look to Paul’s charge to Timothy. Paul tells us that the Hymenns have “erred with respect to the truth” (2 Tim. 2:18). Erring with regard to the truth means that we have erred about the “truth of the Gospel.”
His description of the Hymenns is not that they have erred with respect to one truth among many Gospel truths. On the contrary, their error is a capital error; the whole truth has been denied.
Their preterist resurrection theology has overthrown the faith of some. This is a powerful indictment. Not merely the faith by which we believe, but The Faith that we believe is defeated, destroyed.
The teachings of the Hymenns are labeled a “canker,” a gangrene, perhaps a cancer. The Greek word could be a medical word or a word describing oxidation. If the former, then, the church is compared to a living organism. A malignancy or a gangrene can only destroy this organism! Hymenn theology is a cancer in the living organism of the church.
Hymenns also make “shipwreck” of the Faith (1 Tim. 1:19). The shipwreck is a religious shipwreck. Hymennism is not a mere pinhole in the hull of the good ship salvation.
The upshot is that we should not be referring to the disciples of Hymenus as “beloved brethren,” as “good friends,” as “dear Christian brethren.” They are the enemies of Christ and the enemies of the church. The “sons of the resurrection” should not be taken unawares. Hymenns who are members in Christian churches should be disciplined for their error, even delivered over to Satan so that they would not blaspheme (1 Tim. 1:20).
If a church unwittingly carries Hymenn books (such as the Leonards’
The Promise of His Coming, or J. Stuart Russell’s
The Parousia), these books should be torched or removed immediately. No church should pray God’s speed on the disciples of Hymenaeus. If a church has Hymenn members, let her admonish or rebuke these subverters at once. We dare not give them the Lord’s Supper. We must not let them get away with calling themselves “preterists” or “consistent preterists,” or believers in “fulfilled eschatology.”
The word “preterist” is a good word. The disciples of Hymenus are not preterists; their “dispensable eschatology” makes them heretics. What is more, they are antichrists; for only the spirit of antichrist says that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh (1 Jn. 4
ff).
When we interview new members, we need to question them about Christ’s resurrection and ours. Hymenns are not our friends; they are the enemies of the cross. If we deny the future resurrection of the body then we deny the resurrection of Christ. And if we deny the resurrection of Christ’s flesh, then we deny his accomplishment on the cross.
The design of Christ’s bodily resurrection was to implement His sacrifice on the cross, when He suffered the wrath of God in his body and in his soul. He came to redeem us in body and in soul (Rom. 8:23
; 1 Cor. 6:20).
Hymenaenism is damnable heresy.