| Statement on
Neo-Hymenaeanism By Stuart W. Bryan & Joost Nixon Christ Church :: Free Literature |
Remember, "you get what you pay for." |
| Introduction | |
|
|
| Though this impassioned warning was given to the elders at Ephesus almost two thousand years ago, it applies with equal force to elders all over the world today. God has established elders as watchmen to instruct and care for the flock. Overseers are to nourish God's sheep on a diet of sound doctrine, and they are to refute the wolves who introduce heresy and seek to lead the flock astray (Tit. 1:9). It is in keeping with this latter duty, a duty of protection, that the elders of Christ Church are compelled to warn the flock about the heresy of Neo-Hymenaeanism. Admittedly this appellation is quite a mouthful, but it has been chosen carefully. It represents a new form (hence "Neo-") of an old heresy--a radical reinterpretation of the bodily resurrection advanced by a man named Hymenaeus. Paul likened the error of Hymenaeus to gangrene or cancer (2 Tim 2:16-18) and, in order to root it out, delivered Hymenaeus over to Satan so that he might be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:20). Since the modern form exhibits such striking similarity to Hymenaeus' teaching, we call the current version of this heresy Neo-Hymenaeanism . But it is also known by other names such as pantelism, hyper-preterism, full or exhaustive preterism, etc. | Luke 21 20 "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let them that are in the midst of it depart out, and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! For there shall be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 "And there shall be signs in the sun and in the moon and in the stars; and upon the earth distress among nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring. 26 Men's hearts will fail them for fear and for looking upon those things which are coming on the land; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh." Jesus said that those of His
generation would "see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and
great glory." Nobody -- I repeat, NOBODY -- living in the 21st century teaches that Hymaneaus was correct, and Jesus came before the Romans surrounded Jerusalem. What the article on the left is trying to do is link an obvious heretic of the first century with modern-day "preterists" to manipulate people's emotions. This is not "sound doctrine." This is both a logical fallacy and a violation of the Ninth Commandment. New Testament churches should not call men to be teachers who have such defects of character. Even if their writings are free. |
What is Neo-Hymenaeanism? |
|
| In its most basic form, Neo-Hymenaeanism asserts that every NT reference to Christ's "coming" (Greek--parousia) and to the end of "the age" (aeon) refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 along with other contemporaneous events. Consequently, advocates of this view hold that there will be no future, final coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. To support this doctrine, Neo-Hymenaeanism reinterprets both the resurrection of the body and the final judgment. They do this in various ways. The "resurrection" refers either to some type of spiritual resurrection of Christ's body, the Church, in AD 70, or to a replacement "resurrection" body which believers receive at death. But in either case, our physical bodies return to dust after death, never to rise again. Neo-Hymenaeanists must also reinterpret the final judgment. Judgment is either a representative judgment of all men in the particular judgment of Israel in AD 70 or an individual and personal judgment, taking place once and for all for each individual at death. There is no final, collective judgment of all men. Confused? This is not surprising. Neo-Hymenaeanism as a system fails to cohere, and in an effort to clean up the mess, advocates adopt different approaches, none of which prove adequate. | The issue in this debate is
simple: are there verses in the Bible -- especially in those books of the Bible
written in the first century A.D. -- which teach that The Day of Judgment and
related events were to take place more than 20 centuries later? Not just: are
there verses which can teach a future event, but verses which can only
teach that the event is thousands of years in the future, and preclude
any possibility of a first century fulfillment? These are verses in
which the author could not possibly have intended to communicate the possibility
that the fulfillment would be within
the lifetime of the readers. Or, if the author might well have intended
to communicate a first-century fulfillment, in another verse of inspired Scripture
the Holy Spirit communicated that the mental intention of the human author was wrong,
and that a fulfillment thousands of years in the future was intended by God.
Preclusion of preterism must come from the Bible itself, not from human commentators, even "the Church Fathers." |
The Gravity of the Situation |
|
| The astute reader will discern the extent to which Neo-Hymenaeanism distorts the Christian view of the future (eschatology). For, while a difference of opinion remains among orthodox Christians on the manner and timing of Christ's future coming, they have always agreed on certain eschatological minimums. All believe in the future and final coming of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the wicked and the righteous at the end of the world, and the future and final judgment of all men at the last day. Neo-Hymenaeanism attacks these very eschatological issues to which Christians have always given their unanimous consent. In attacking such central doctrines, it is no wonder that other important doctrines are also overturned. | So far, no verses have been offered to prove that key events were to take place more than 20 centuries later. |
Erroneous Approach to Scriptural Interpretation |
|
| The problems of Neo-Hymenaeanism begin with an
erroneous approach to Scriptural interpretation.
Within the bounds of orthodoxy it is permissible to apply many or even most of the references to Christ's "coming" and to the end of "the age" to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (e.g., Mt 24; Lk 20, etc). This old and honorable method of interpretation has historically been called preterism. |
Since the Preterist method of
interpretation is orthodox, valid in "many or even most" passages, the
burden to prove that the orthodox method of interpretation, is not
valid in a handful of passages is on those who do not consistently apply the
hermeneutic.
Matthew 24 is a relevant passage. The parallel is Luke 21, not 20. |
| Neo-Hymenaeanism, however, goes further and asserts that all references to Christ's "coming" and to the end of "the age" refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It argues that in order to be consistent each occurrence of these words (parousia and aeon) must be applied to the same event. However, similarity of language does not necessitate an identity of referent. An example of this can be seen in John 5:24-29. |
John 5 |
| Verses 24-25 speak of those who are spiritually
dead and enter life.
But in verse 28 Jesus begins to address the physically dead that will hear Christ's voice while in the grave, and be resurrected for the final judgment. Here, in the context of just a few verses, Jesus uses the same word (death) to refer to both the state of being unregenerate, and the state of being physically dead. |
The text itself does not say "spiritually"
dead.
Nor does it say "physically" dead. The distinction is
added to the text. Maybe there's a long, drawn-out scholarly argument with lots of verses that proves that the otherwise-orthodox preterist interpretation is wrong when applied to John 5, but such an argument is not found in the article at left; only a bald claim and slanderous attacks against those who refuse to accept the claim blindly. |
| Let's try a thought experiment. Let's assume that the Neo-Hymenaeists are correct, and that every occurrence of the words "coming" and "end of the age" refers to the exact same event in AD 70. Such an experiment yields frightening consequences. Following this method of interpretation, | |
| marriage must be abolished (Lk 20:35), | Galatians 3:26-29 For ye are
all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. {27} For
as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. {28}
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. {29}
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise.
How can there be any marriage in this New Covenant if there is neither male nor female? Or is it possible that wooden literalism is not as good a hermeneutic as preterism? |
| the Lord's Supper terminated (1 Cor 11:26), | The "Lord's Supper" was actually Passover. Should we still be observing Passover now that the Roman armies have destroyed Jerusalem and the Old Covenant system? |
| Jesus' reign at the right hand of the Father ended (1 Cor 15:23ff), | 1 Corinthians 15 23 but every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then cometh the end when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He hath put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, 27 for "He hath put all things under His feet." But when He saith "all things" are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted, who did put all things under Him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son Himself also be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. Here is the word "reign" in Luke's gospel:
In AD 70 Jesus destroyed those who did not want Him as their Messiah. When His enemies were destroyed, did that mean that His reign came to an end ? Here's the word "reign" in the book of Revelation:
Does Christ reign forever, or only for 1,000 years? |
| and Jesus' presence with his people revoked (Mt 28:20). | Name one preterist who believes that
Jesus will NOT be with His people after the Old Covenant age comes to a complete
end.
Suppose Psychic A predicts that President Obama will be assassinated before the mid-term elections. Psychic B says, "No, Obama will be protected from all assassinations attempts until the mid-term elections are over." Has there been any definite claim that Obama will not be with "his people" after the mid-term elections? These elementary mistakes in logic can be expected from free teachers. |
| Going even further, Neo-Hymenaeanism must
maintain the preposterous notion that death has been completely conquered, since
Paul correlates the "coming" of Christ with the eradication of death (1
Cor 15:26).
These absurd implications are enough to give most students of the Scriptures a severe case of hermeneutical indigestion. Yet the Neo-Hymenaeists proceed undeterred. |
2
Timothy 1:10 but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel. |
Contradicts Cardinal Christian Convictions |
|
| Above we have seen examples of the faulty and overly rigid exegetical grid of Neo-Hymenaeanism. Moreover, we have stated that the heresy denies the future, final coming of our Lord Jesus Christ to raise all men simultaneously from the dead for judgment. Desperate to maintain this position, Neo-Hymenaeanism is willing to pit itself against the Christian view of history, the historic confession of the Church, and, most significantly, the teaching of Scripture. | Personally, I don't deny any such doctrines, I merely assert that there are no verses in the Bible that conclusively prove them. No preterist I know is "willing to pit himself against the teaching of Scripture." But I've come to expect these kind of claims from these free teachers. |
| First, Neo-Hymenaeanism's denial of the future, final coming of our Lord destroys the Christian view of history. The Christian view of history stands in stark contrast to that of all other worldviews. History, according to Christianity, is linear with a beginning and an end, creation and judgment. | I know of no preterist who holds to
the worldviews of other religions.
"Christianity" in this case might be something different from the Word of God. This particular concept of "history" might also be different from what the Word of God teaches. John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word." This is before the Creation. Is it part of "history?" "And the Word was with God." Does this state of affairs come to an end? When does eternity "end?" So in what sense is this "beginning and an end" either important or Biblical? |
| Neo-Hymenaeanism removes the end point and makes history eternal, robbing it of its meaning and entailing the perpetuity of sin and rebellion. | The first question is whether the
Bible teaches the "end point" which our free teachers teach.
The second question is whether the denial of an unBiblical doctrine robs history of its meaning. History has meaning even if the Bible does not teach a third coming of Christ (first coming = Christmas, second coming = A.D. 70). The third question is whether "the perpetuity of sin and rebellion" can be inferred from the fact that the Bible does not speak of another coming of Christ. The New Testament seems quite often to say that the coming of Christ had as its purpose the eradication of sin and rebellion. It also seems that this eradication of sin and glorification of individuals and cultures is precisely the purpose of history. Contrary to dispensationalists, the Bible does not claim that Christ failed (and the Holy Spirit fails) to progressively sanctify the entire world, but that global sanctification happens all at once at the third coming of Christ, without any duty on our part to "put to death the old man." |
| However, Romans 8:18ff specifically tells us that creation was subjected to futility after the Fall and was still awaiting, in Paul's day, its release. Paul likened the earth in its futile state to a woman in childbirth, groaning under contractions. To be consistent, Neo-Hymenaeanism must maintain that in AD 70 the baby was born and the earth is no longer subjected to futility. If this were true, however, then why do we continue to see natural disasters, cursed ground, famine, and pestilence? Futility is all around us; the earth groans for redemption to this day. Neo-Hymenaeanism supplies no solution to this agony since it rejects the final, future coming of Christ to set all things aright. | If Adam had refused to work before the Fall, would there have been "famine?" |
| Romans 8 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God; 17 and if children, then heirs -- heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if so it be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope, for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for it? 25 But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover, whom He predestined, those He also called; and whom He called, those He also justified; and whom He justified, those He also glorified. 31 What then shall we say of these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay anything to the charge against God's elect? It is God who justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ who died, yea rather, who is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written: "For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter." 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. |
The "sufferings of this present time" are described in verses 35ff. For Paul, this meant persecution by the Jews. This persecution ended in A.D. 70. In this context of Jewish persecution, and given that "many or even most of the references" to the "old age" or "old world" or "old heavens" and "old earth" are references to the Old Covenant or Jewish traditions, is it not at least possible that "the bondage of corruption" in verse 21 is a reference to Pharisaism? As we interpret this part of Romans 8, should we sound more like Al Gore ("An Inconvenient Truth") or the Apostle Paul (inspired Truth)?
The word "creation" in verse 22 is translated in different ways:
Is it not possible that the "creation" in Romans 8 is the Old Testament world that was destroyed in A.D. 70, and not the physical planet earth? A similar mistake is made in the case of 2 Peter 3, I believe. |
| Second, Neo-Hymenaeanism must spurn the historic, and uniform, confession of the Church. From her earliest history, the Church has incorporated the future, final coming of Christ, the concurrent bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the last judgment among the creeds or public confessions of the faith. The Nicene Creed declares that Jesus "shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead" and professes faith in "the resurrection of the dead." The Athanasian Creed, expanding and clarifying this confession, declares that: | The revered Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) claims that the papacy is the anti-Christ. The vast majority of Reformed Christians believe the Creed is in error at this point. The Scripture prooftexts used by the WCF and other creeds to prove these "historic and uniform" doctrines of futurism are regarded by the overwhelming majority of Postmillennialists to be wrongly applied. See the discussion here. We are only in the "third day" of church history. It is likely that thousands, maybe millions of years of "church history" are ahead of us. As James B. Jordan has cleverly remarked, sometimes the "Church Fathers" are, historically speaking, the "church babies." |
|
I'm don't think the original has the numbering "1" as the article at left does. |
| Neo-Hymenaeanism rejects the creeds at this point and asserts that the unanimous testimony of the Church has been completely erroneous. But how could this be given our Lord's promises to protect and instruct His Church (Mt 16:18; Jn 14:26; 17:17; 1 Tim 3:15)? Granted, the church builds and refines its understanding of the Word of God. But this building and refining occurs on top of a doctrinal foundation that has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). Neo-Hymenaeists, we maintain, are taking a jack -hammer to this very foundation by asserting that key premises upon which the gospel rests are erroneous. If they are right, then central doctrines of the faith have been completely misconstrued by believers for thousands of years. Even disciples like Polycarp who were discipled by the apostles themselves and would surely have heard of the resurrection, had it occurred, were taken in. Forgive us if we remain skeptical. |
Then the Papacy must in fact be the anti-Christ.
I forgive you for remaining skeptical if you forgive me for putting the inSpired Scripture ahead of human creeds. These are big hermeneutical and historical issues, that should not be dismissed with name-calling and prejudicial appeals to "church history." |
| Third, Neo-Hymenaeanism must circumvent the perspicacious teaching of the Scriptures. Throughout the Old Testament there are days of judgment declared for various nations such as Edom (Is 34:6,8), Babylon (Is 13:6,9), Lebanon (Is 2:12), Egypt (Ezek 30:2ff), and even the people of Israel and Judah themselves (Is 10:3; Amos 5:18ff; Zeph 1:7). It was another of these days of judgment that fell on the Jews in AD 70. Having spurned their Messiah, they fell under God's just wrath. However, this judgment was no more the historical culmination of God's vengeance on all nations than was the judgment of Assyria or Edom. It was a historical judgment declaring God's sovereign control of history and his determination to glorify His name by severing off an unfruitful branch (Mt 21:33ff; Jn 15:6; Rom 11:17ff). | So far, everything in the paragraph is pure preterism. |
| The Scriptures go on to teach that, while the judgment on Israel in AD 70 was not the culmination of judgment, there will come a day, the "last day," when God will judge the world and angelic beings through Jesus Christ our Lord (Mt 10:15; 11:24; 12:36, 41f; Acts 17:31; 1 Cor 6:2,3; Jude 6). This will be the culmination of God's historical judgments and will bring an end to history as we know it. | Good. Verses. Let's look at them. Keep in mind that the article at left has conceded that "many or even most" of the premillennialists' favorite passages can legitimately be given a preterist interpretation. Let's see if these verses PROHIBIT preterism. Matthew 10:15 This verse absolutely must not be interpreted as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Really? Matthew 11:24 This verse absolutely must not be interpreted as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Really? Matthew 12:36 This verse cannot be interpreted as applying to the Day of Vengeance in A.D. 70, and MUST be applied to an event thousands of years after that generation died out? Matthew 12:41 Now. Acts 17:31 I think the first four verses clearly apply to A.D. 70. This one is not as clear. But if I apply the same hermeneutic here -- a hermeneutic that the article at left agrees can be applied to "many or even most" passages, am I really a heretic? 1 Corinthians 6:2,3 Romans 8 above speaks of "angels" and "principalities" and "powers." There is a great deal in the Bible that speaks of angelic rulers, and much that says Christ dethroned them, and gave kingship to the saints. There are some who strongly oppose full preterism who might concede that 1 Corinthians 6 was talking about A.D. 70, e.g., James B. Jordan. Jude 1:6 See these blog posts, but for best results, read the posts from bottom to top. The question of what Christ did to the angelic powers is a big issue, and I think it's unBiblical and dangerous for this debate to be nixed with slander, sound-bites, and bumper-sticker slogans. |
| This final judgment will be preceded by the bodily resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. This is evident in two respects. First, Jesus frequently correlates the "last day" with the resurrection of His people. For instance, in John 6:44 Jesus declares, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Later, in verse 54, He likewise says, "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (See also Jn. 6:39-40; 11:24). Second, Jesus counsels us, "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Mt. 10:28). Jesus is clearly intending to inform his listeners that men can only trouble them so far. Men, he says, can merely destroy your body; they cannot destroy your soul. However, there is One, namely God, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. This verse is problematic for the Neo-Hymenaeists who interpret the resurrection as merely spiritual. | No it's not. "Hell" is the Greek "Gehenna." This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the destruction of unbelieving Jews. |
| Philippians
3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the Concision. Revelation
22:15 Matthew
7:6 More on "hell" in similar passages: When will there be weeping and gnashing of teeth? |
|
| If they are right, then those who suffer in hell have no physical bodies. But Jesus linked the body and soul after death-the soul as well as the body shall be cast into hell. Clearly Jesus envisioned a time, prior to judgment, when the body and soul would be reunited. This time is known elsewhere as the resurrection of the dead (Jn 5:28f; Acts 17:31; 23:6; 24:15). | Jews who were destroyed by fire in
Gehenna had physical bodies.
We looked at John 5 above. Let's look at the other verses offered to see if they rule out preterism. Acts 17:3131 because He hath appointed a Day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained. Of this He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." Acts 23:6 Acts 24:15 I just don't see preterism ruled out -- prohibited, precluded, no more discussion -- by these verses. Mainly because the preterist hermeneutic is orthodox, and can legitimately be applied to "many, even most" of the passages in question, so why not these? What is the evidence that Luke intended to preclude a preterist interpretation of these passages, when the preterist interpretation was most likely intended in all the other passages? |
| Therefore, despite the clear teaching of Scripture, the unanimous testimony of the Church, and the devastating consequences of its position, Neo-Hymenaeanism denies the future coming of Christ to raise all men from the dead and judge them for their works in the body. | It is inescapably
clear that Jesus taught a judgment according to works in the first century.
This doctrine is taught in many passages. It is not inescapably
clear that there is a single text which cannot -- must not -- be interpreted the
same way. It is likely and probable that most eschatological passages in the New
Testament either can or should be interpreted preteristically. It is at least
possible and arguable that all of them should.
The first century occurrence of the coming of Christ and the day of judgment is a much clearer teaching in the New Testament than that of a similar event thousands of years in the future. That the resurrection would occur at the same time is not disputed by any but the most flakey dispensationalist. |
Unorthodox Resurrection Theories |
|
| The heretical nature of Neo-Hymenaeanism becomes even clearer as one evaluates its denial of the physical nature of the resurrection body. Scripture repeatedly links the resurrection of Christ with our resurrection (Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:20ff, 42-49; Phil 3:21). But if our resurrection body is merely spiritual, and our resurrection bodies are patterned after Christ's, then consistency would entail a denial of Christ's physical resurrection. Not only is such an assertion patently denied by Scripture (see Lk 24:39; Jn 20:27), it undermines the Gospel itself (1 Cor 15:16,17). For now, most Neo-Hymenaeists shrink from denying Christ's physical resurrection. However, if God does not grant them repentance, one day the weight of the premises will snap their resistance and the logic will drive them to a bodiless Christ, a Savior not found in Scripture. | Not all preterists deny that the
resurrection was physical. There clearly was a physical resurrection in the first
century (Matthew
27:51-52).
Christ's resurrection body was in some sense physical, but in some senses quite unlike our physical bodies. See here. |
Conclusion |
|
| As we have seen from our discussion above, Neo-Hymenaeanism is both erroneous and heretical. While it invokes the principle of semper reformata, claiming that it is attempting to refine the Church's understanding of the coming of our Lord, it actually repudiates and rejects this very teaching, one which Paul labels "our hope" (Acts 23:6). Neo-Hymenaeanism stands with all other deviations from orthodox Christianity as an attempt to cloak its heresy within orthodox terminology while its true nature is destructive of the faith. Consequently, its adherents are in grievous danger of damning their own souls. May God in His mercy grant them understanding to see and to turn from their error and may His people "avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and . . . spread like gangrene" (2 Tim 2:16f). | I think the issues raised by preterists are deserving of serious study, while the slander and slogans used by anti-preterists are more like "worldly and empty chatter." No Berean preterist will find such "arguments" persuasive. |