Preterism and the Holy Spirit

[Auntie]

Do preterists believe Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit?

From what I have read, most preterists believe that Christians were given the Holy Spirit only temporarily, only until the time Jesus returned in 70AD, and at that point Christians were filled with Jesus himself, and the Holy Spirit and corresponding gifts of the Holy Spirit were taken away, as they were no longer necessary.

[Acts6:5]

Most preterists I have heard believe we still have the Holy Spirit. Many preterists believe that the charisma gifts were temporary (just like many futurist Christians believe), not the Holy Spirit Himself (although there are preterists that believe the gifts do continue - I have a book on it). Hope that answers your question.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Acts6:5

Most preterists I have heard believe we still have the Holy Spirit.



Many preterists believe the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was temporary. At preteristarchive homepage:

"Preterist Articles
John Anderson, Lighthouse Productions
Voice of Reason Archives - John's guests include: Gary DeMar, Ron McRay, Tim King, Samuel Frost, Ed Stevens, Don Preston, John Noe, Jerry Wayne Bernard, Tommy Ice, etc.."

This clearly shows Ed Stevens to be one of the top writers for preteristarchives.

Quoting Edward E. Stevens:
"10. Christ Has Returned – He is here now to stay – He will never leave again. We will live in His presence forever. Jesus the High Priest has returned out of the Holy of Holies (heaven) to manifest the fact that Final Atonement has been made. How many times does Christ need to make atonement and come back out of heaven to proclaim it? The idea of multiple comings just doesn’t fit the picture here (Hebrews 9). Now we have a better indwelling than what the transition period saints had. They had the miraculous indwelling and empowering of the Holy Spirit. We have Christ Himself dwelling with us and in us."

http://www.preterist.org/articles-old/doctrinal_implications.htm

[armothe]

Just some interesting verses to browse:


John 14:25 I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.

John 14:15 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

John 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning.

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned.

John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; 

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.


I don't claim to be the authority on the Holy Spirit, but it seems safe to say that if the HS existed with the same magnitude it did in the 1st century, we would be seeing a lot of:

accurate prophecy
more inspired books of the Bible
Christians casting out demons
speaking in tongues
miraculous healing
raising people from the dead

I, personally have never been able to do any of the above, nor have I seen somebody do any of the above.

-A

[Acts6:5]

Auntie,

I certainly know who Ed Stevens is, and I am telling you, as a preterist myself, that many if not most preterists believe that the Holy Spirit is here for us today. I don't care if Ed is a "top writer". I don't care if he was the founder of preterism itself; I am telling you, as a preterist, what many of us actually believe, not what you think or hope we believe. Ed has written on the subject of the rapture recently, and a great many preterists have disagreed with his findings, and have written whole articles to refute him.

Ed Stevens is not the Pope of Preterism; He is not the Apostolic Head of Preterism, and his beliefs are not law to us. Some Preterists believe that we do not have the Holy Spirit like the First Century Saints did, and some preterists do. Your question was "Do preterists believe Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit?", and my answer was "Yes", most/many do. I did not say that all preterists believe Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit. Many believe it, many don't. I even gave you an example of a book written by preterists who are charismatics. So please, don't try to tell me what preterists like myself believe or don't believe. You asked the question, and I gave you the answer.

Benny Hinn is a top "futurist" writer; does that mean every Christian believes the way he does, simply because he is a "top writer" or a "top leader"?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Acts6:5

I am telling you, as a preterist, what many of us actually believe, not what you think or hope we believe.



I don't even know how to respond to that sentence. I am trying to learn what preterists believe, what preterist teachers teach. You disagree with Stevens, but many preterists agree with him. This has NOTHING to do with my so called hopes :rolleyes: or what I think, but everything to do with the teachings of preterism. If Stevens is so far removed from the teachings of preterism, then why in the world are his teachings represented at preteristarchives.



So please, don't try to tell me what preterists like myself believe or don't believe.



I thought I could talk to you, Acts, but obviously I can't. I posted the views of a preterist at preteristarchive, and you get all defensive and accusatory. I am not wanting the personal views of each and every individual preterist at this board. I am interested in preterist views about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit--some say yes, some say no, why or why not, and what scriptures back up each view.

You could have posted quotes from other preterists that refute the views of Stevens, but why would you bother to do that, when it is easier to just attack me.

Just forget it. I refuse to get into another biting session.

[Auntie]

Thank you, armothe, for a very civil reply. And what you have said is exactly why we must each study the scriptures, especially when we profess to believe that ALL scripture has been fullfilled, because that belief causes one to reread everything with new eyes, and new interpretation. You must reconsider everything.

Thanks.

[armothe]

As mentioned, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue.

I believe God speaks to us through His Word. I believe God answers prayer. I believe we speak to God through prayer.
I tend to believe the HS is a manifestation of God and is somehow still working to this present day.

I really can't comprehend how God exists, but I can only study the Bible and see examples of the HS work through the disciples and Apostles. I do not see similar events (ie ressureccting the dead) happening today.

Just to clarify, my use of John 14:30

I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; 

Was actually in reference to Satan being "unleashed" during the NT period.
My goal was to make a point that the Holy Spirit was to be released to the Disciples and Apostles to combat Satan's missives.

I apologize for neglecting to do so in my previous post and possibly hinting that this verse referred to the HS.

-A

[Auntie]

Originally posted by armothe

Just to clarify, my use of John 14:30

I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; 

Was actually in reference to Satan being "unleashed" during the NT period.
My goal was to make a point that the Holy Spirit was to be released to the Disciples and Apostles to combat Satan's missives.

I apologize for neglecting to do so in my previous post and possibly hinting that this verse referred to the HS.

-A



You did fine, I understood what you meant.:)

Thanks.

[Acts6:5]

Hi Auntie,

We can have a civil discussion. My first post on this thread reflected that spirit, wouldn't you agree? I didn't think my last post was uncivil (and it wasn't meant to be), so for that I'm sorry. I was trying to be firm but not insensitive.

I told you that some preterists believe and some don't.
But your response to me was "No, Acts...". That to me is not trying to "learn" what what preterists believe, but it is trying to "tell" me what preterists believe. I said that "most" preterists that I have heard do believe the Holy Spirit is with us today, and you immediately took issue with that. Just because Ed Steven's believes differently doesn't make what I said any less true.

Steven's teaches many things I agree with, and a few that I don't. Leaders in preterist circles have disagreements in doctrine just like various futurist leaders have disagreements in doctrine.

Like I said, some believe the Holy Spirit is for today and some don't. You said you were interested in preterist views about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and in my original post I gave you my answer, a very respectuful one. All I'd ask is that in the future you accept my answers rather than immediately disagree them. If you really want to learn what we believe then please listen and accept our answers. Sound fair enough? If so, we'll get along fine. :)

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Auntie]

"No, Acts", has been deleted.


Originally posted by Acts:

I said that "most" preterists that I have heard do believe the Holy Spirit is with us today, and you immediately took issue with that.



Check the post time. My reply to you came about 4 hours after your post. It was not "immediate". I gave your answer some thought before I replied. I appreciate the fact that your answer reflects the views of many preterists.

My interest is WHY do some preterists not hold your view. How did Stevens--and many other preterists-- come to his conclusions.

You could say "this is what Acts believes, and this is why Acts believes it." And "this is what other preterists believe, and this is why they believe what they believe".

That would give me a more complete picture of preterist views.

[Ozarkpreterist]

Auntie Belle Um,

Preterists do disagree on this subject. Yet, non-preterists disagree on this subject as well. Concerning the gifts, some preterists such as Stevens use the passage in I Corinthians 13 to say the gifts have passed away.

"...but if there are gifts of prophesy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease: if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (I Cor 13 8-10)"

Stevens considers that the perfect did come at the Parousia at AD 70. Therefore, these gifts are no more. Incidentally, many evangelicals use this passage for the same reason. Only they say the perfect is the completed cannon of scripture.

John Noe who is a good friend of Stevens thinks otherwise. He believes that the gifts came into maturity at the Parousia. He has written a paper called "Why we may soon see a return to first century caliber miracles." (That is not the exact title, but it is close.) In this paper Noe says that as the church returns to first century teachings, we will see first century miracles.

Because of my somewhat charismatic background, I lean towards Noe. I have seen many miracles in my years with the Lord. Yet, I am still seeking the Lord on the matter. If He has a higher understanding, I am all for it.

By the way Auntie, you do seem to be becoming more civil about things. If you are seeking to understand preterism before you judge it, you are wise.

[armothe]

I'm not sure if there is an official "preterist" handbook which lists what preterists have to believe to be a preterist.

The one thing all preterists believe is that Christ's 2nd coming happened in the 1st century.

Other doctrine, issues, questions surrounding and relating to that event differ between preterists.

Preterism does cause one to rethink a lot of the doctrine surrounding Christianity and the NT.

Some preterists believe the Lord's Supper is still necessary, some do not. Some believe water baptism is essential to Christianity, some do not. Some believe the Holy Spirit is as strong as ever today, some do not.

It all varies by individual.

-A

[jenlu]

Thats why I'm not a preterist, I just can't see(read as understand) the 2nd Coming of Christ in those scripture's as being past...There was definitely a "Coming of the Lord" described in scripture that has passed, but I don't see the scripture's on Resurrection Day/Judgement Day as past to us...there is a difference in my opinion(at least thus far) in the discussion of either one(the "coming" in 70 AD and the 2nd coming) in the Bible...

[armothe]

Originally posted by jenlu
I just can't see(read as understand) the 2nd Coming of Christ in those scripture's as being past

It wasn't a past event. When it was written, it was a future event. It is *now* a past event.

-A

[Auntie]

Ozark,

I'll study your words before replying, except I do wish to respond to this now:

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist

If you are seeking to understand preterism before you judge it, you are wise.



I am seeking to discover ALL that preterism ENCOMPASSES. The doctrine that all prophecy was fullfilled in 70AD should cause ALL believers to ask the question "How does this belief affect preterist views on ALL DOCTRINE", not just eschatology doctrine.

If you choose to believe ALL has been fullfilled, then you must be willing to examine every area of your beliefs.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not considering a belief in preterism. If anything, I am stating that all preterists should examine their beliefs in it's entirety. You know your eschatology views, now discover how those views affect your other doctrinal concepts.



(when I say "you", I don't mean you personally, but all preterists.)

[Acts6:5]

Hi Auntie,

I'm glad we have gotten over that little bump (it was quite unintentional).

Check the post time. My reply to you came about 4 hours after your post. It was not "immediate". I gave your answer some thought before I replied. I appreciate the fact that your answer reflects the views of many preterists.

I meant "immediate" as far as your very next post, not the exact timing of it :). I am glad that you did give my posts some thought before posting; I try to do you the same courtesy. And whenever you ask why I've come to a conclusion about a certain belief I'll try to give you the scriptural support for it. Talk to you soon.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Ozarkpreterist]

Auntie,

You are correct. The implications of preterism for the church are astounding. I think you will find that we preterists have grappled with the results of a completed eschatology. There is even a step beyond that, and that is to live preterism.

Ultimately eschatology seeks to answer the question of how much of our salvation we can truly experience in our lives. Preterism says most all of it. We have been lifted up into the presence of God (Eph 2:5-6) and His presence abides here in us through Christ Jesus. The Devil has been cast down, and it is time for reigning not just as priests unto our God but as kings as well.

Of all the eschatological views preterism gives the most glory to God in the present, and it is harshest on the Devil.

Jesus gets a whole lot bigger when one embraces fulfilled eschatology. I don't see how that can be a bad thing.

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist

Concerning the gifts, some preterists such as Stevens use the passage in I Corinthians 13 to say the gifts have passed away.

"...but if there are gifts of prophesy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease: if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (I Cor 13 8-10)"

Stevens considers that the perfect did come at the Parousia at AD 70. Therefore, these gifts are no more.



Thank you Ozark. If I were a preterist, according to the verse you quoted above, I would have to agree with Stevens. I don't see/understand how someone could disagree with the scripture you quoted.

But also, Stevens seems to believe that, along with the "doing away with" the gifts, was also a replacement indwelling...that is, the indwelling of Jesus replaced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Am I reading Stevens correctly? :scratch:



I have seen many miracles in my years with the Lord. Yet, I am still seeking the Lord on the matter. If He has a higher understanding, I am all for it.



Yes, it is impossible for me to believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been done away with. I recieved a miraculous healing of my body, from the Holy Spirit. I don't know why God healed me, but He did. And I praise His Name and love Him dearly for His mercy on me, a sinner.:bow: That was a few years ago, but thinking about it just now, I come close to tears as I recall my illness and God's tender mercy upon me. I was healed instantly and totally. I am so overwhelmed with God's great love and mercy.:bow:

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist

You are correct. The implications of preterism for the church are astounding.



Absolutely astounding. And that is the heart of my interest in preterism. I believe, ultimately, preterism will effect the church in much the same way as Martin Luther. I don't see how preterism cannot effect the church in a major way. Time will tell, but that is my opinion.

[Ozarkpreterist]

Auntie,

Thank you. Those were some great posts. As for Stevens, I am not all that familiar with his writings. I have just read a booklet he wrote which gave a thumbnail sketch of preterism. Perhaps someone else could answer your questions about him better.

Ozark

[Auntie]

Thanks Ozark:)

[Acts6:5]

Absolutely astounding. And that is the heart of my interest in preterism. I believe, ultimately, preterism will effect the church in much the same way as Martin Luther. I don't see how preterism cannot effect the church in a major way. Time will tell, but that is my opinion.

Hi Auntie, I'm curious; do you see the effect of preterism on the church as a good thing or a bad thing? You have disagreed with preterist doctrine in the past, and yet your last post seems to have a very positive attitude toward it. I also saw that you compared possible preterist reformation to Luther (and I'm sure you think that was a good reformation :)). So do you believe a more modern reformation dealing with preterism will be good for the Church, even though you may disagree with it? Just wondering. Like I said, you've got me curious.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Acts6:5]

Also, about spiritual gifts; I've heard it said that even though some preterists believe the charismatic spiritual gifts have ceased, that does not mean that God cannot do miraculous works through His people today. What I'm saying is that even though the "gift" of healing has ceased (for example), if God's people pray for the healing of an individual, God can and has healed. I've prayed for people in my life and have seen healings and answers to prayer (though not on a 1st Century level). I don't think it had anything to do with the "gift" of healing, but it was simply God answering one of His children's prayers.

There may be a few extreme preterists who feel God doesn't interact with us supernaturally at all anymore, but I think the vast majority of preterists believe that God can heal, give guidance, and can interact supernaturally with us, although not in the same way as the 1st Century Saints.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Acts6:5

Hi Auntie, I'm curious; do you see the effect of preterism on the church as a good thing or a bad thing? You have disagreed with preterist doctrine in the past, and yet your last post seems to have a very positive attitude toward it.



I do not see the effect of preterism on the church as good. I greatly disagree with preterism doctrine. I believe the magnitude of the effect of preterism upon the church will be far reaching, and ultimately cause a great division.

Originally posted by Acts6:5

I also saw that you compared possible preterist reformation to Luther (and I'm sure you think that was a good reformation :)). So do you believe a more modern reformation dealing with preterism will be good for the Church, even though you may disagree with it?



Acts, you have asked a HUGE question.:) That question would make a very good thread.

I will answer in part, to answer completely would take all day! Is it God's will that the church of Jesus Christ be divided? God forbid! And yet it happened. Was it by God's design? I don't know, I don't think so. I think it grieves the Spirit of God to see his children divided. I have often wished that somehow someway Catholics and Protestants could reunite. I wish that the problems in Martin Luther's day could have been solved within the Church, and then there would have been no need for the "big split". But man is stubborn, hearts become hardened, and we each go our separate ways. The very heart of the gospel is reconciliation to God, and to each other. But the pride of man and the wisdom of man will always cause divisions among us.

I believe preterism could herald in another "big split". I don't see this as positive, but inevitable. But what is the preterist to do? How long can he put his hands over his ears as sermons are preached and hymns are sung about the future 2nd Coming Of Jesus? Can a preterist allow his child to attend a Sunday School class where futurist doctrine is taught? And what are the Protestant churches to do? How long can they ignore the doctrine of fullfilled eschatology? Will they not, one day, have to make an official statement concerning preterism? If the Protestant Churches officially denounce preterism, how will the preterist react to that? And if a reformation occurs "within" the church ie the church embraces preterism, how will the futurist react to that?

I can't help but see a big split, either way.

[Ozarkpreterist]

Auntie,

Those are some very insightful questions and observations. I hope what you said will not happen. There is another possibility. I think our culture is a little different than in other times in church history. For example, we no longer burn each other at the stake. We just burn each other with our words!

Perhaps the outcome of the preterist viewpoint could be similar to the charismatic movement. At first charismatic Christians were called heretics, of the devil, or they were said to be not even Christians. Yet, look at today. Charismatic Christians are pretty much mainstream. We hear very little of such accusations.

Not everyone accepted the charismatic message. Yet, this movement in some way touched most believers. It touched our worship, it in at least a small way lessoned the distinction between professional clergy and the laity, and brought change in other ways as well.

Perhaps Preterism will be the same. All will certainly not accept it in its entirety. Yet, perhaps it will effect the church as a whole giving a greater understanding of the kingdom of God and what it means to be one of its citizens.

I think another way of looking at it is that if Preterism is not of God, it will wither and fade away. However, if it is… well, as one of my friends likes to say, “You can’t stop God.” As you said, time will tell.

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist

Perhaps the outcome of the preterist viewpoint could be similar to the charismatic movement. At first charismatic Christians were called heretics, of the devil, or they were said to be not even Christians. Yet, look at today. Charismatic Christians are pretty much mainstream. We hear very little of such accusations.



I understand your meaning, Ozark. But charismatics don't have to reread all of the scriptures thru a charismatic filter. Preterism causes one to reread, re-analyze, re-examine, and re-interpret almost every scripture. Unlike the charismatic movement, preterist doctrines results in many basic changes to many basic church doctrines. And that will make the outcome of the preterist movement different from that of the charismatics. Just my opinion.



I think another way of looking at it is that if Preterism is not of God, it will wither and fade away.



That is possible. But somehow I kind of doubt it. You guys seem to be pretty strong in your beliefs.:) Also, there are many beliefs that are not of God and are flourishing ie Mormons, one of the fastest growing churches in the world.

Thanks for your comments.:)

[Bobcat]

But charismatics don't have to reread all of the scriptures thru a charismatic filter.

I beg to differ.

The short version of a very long story: When I was in junior high my folks took our family out of a very "mainline" reformed denomination and to a charismatic (and I mean charismatic with a capital C!) church. Their enitire doctrinal paradigm shifted-especially in relation to Calvinism, gifts of the spirit, and infant baptism. The difference was night and day. The controversy of their change among friends and family makes our little debates on escatology seem positively tame by comparison.

But this may surprise you. Since I've discovered Preterism, Calvinsim suddenly makes a whole lot more sense. I have a much better understanding of the new covenant-something I think Calvinsim addresses, as opposed to a lot of charismatics who are essentially trying to get us back to where the apostles were after Pentacost.

Mind you I'm a super long ways from figuring these things all out, but in this one instance Preterism is bringing me back to one of the absolute pillars of a lot of mainstream Protestant Churches-the teachings of John Calvin.