Remarks On Tertullian’s “De Resurrectione Carnis” (Part 4)

  In Chapter 26, Tertullian makes a point with which I disagree  —  though he does it with good taste  —  namely, that should heretics persist in allegorizing the Scriptures which speak of the resurrection, orthodox Christians may use the same allegorical method to show that it will be bodily rather than spiritual.  All the prophetic passages, for instance, which speak of blessings or punishments in relation to the earth, may, the apologist argues, be turned to good effect in our defense of the resurrection; inasmuch as the flesh of man was formed of earth (Gen. 2: 7).  Admittedly, this argument, bolstered though it is by sundry proof-texts and a forcible logic, is too cumbersome and heavy-handed for most evangelical Christians to adopt.  Besides, it leaves the table too open for alterations in the meaning of language, which any heretic can use to his advantage, when once orthodox Christians have surrendered the grammatical, contextual, historical, and canonical rule of interpretation..

Here A Blog, There A Blog, Everywhere A Blog Blog..

    For those who have been following this blog and its activities, I have some exciting news to share.  I recently acquired some important domain names (I’m not revealing what they all are), which will be used to proliferate materials for refuting Hyper-Preterism.  As most folks have already noticed, this present blog was recently changed from “Hyper-Preterist Times” to “Preterist News,” and the url mapped to http://preteristnews.com.   I also purchased the .net and .org extensions, to avoid the unethical squatters that seem to abound in a Hyper-Preterist setting.  My latest blog, which I just opened the other day, may be viewed at http://preteristmedia.com.  Other blogs will be launched over the next few months.  In case readers don’t know, I spend typically 5-6 hours each day compiling material against Hyper-Preterism.  While the finished product, made available at my blogs, may appear bright and bubbly and effervescent, in reality it is grueling, fatiguing, brain-draining work I do.  But somebody has to do it..

Chiliasm Defended, From Sources Ancient And Modern (Chapter 2)

Chapter II.

Despite the fact that Christians of various persuasions have at times allegorized the prophetic Scriptures, it has become generally apparent that we must, in order to understand the Bible, maintain the meaning of language, according to standard laws which govern exegesis. This is nothing more nor less than the science of Biblical interpretation. If we learn one thing from a survey of ecclesiastical history, it is the facility with which false teachers have in all ages promulgated their heresies through an allegorical reading of Scripture. While there is much talk nowadays concerning the uses or inconveniences of a “grammatico-historical” interpretive approach, it is seldom perceived that the true hermeneutic is in fact “grammatical, historical, contextual, and canonical.”

Understanding all too well the need to return to a plain, untainted reading of God’s word, the Protestant Reformers rightly repudiated an allegorical hermeneutic. Martin Luther once declared: “I have grounded my preaching upon the literal Word. He that pleases may follow me, he that will not may stay” (Luther’s Table-Talk, pg. 6). So also: “The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and of Christian theology… allegories are empty speculations… an interpreter must as much as possible avoid allegory that he may not wander into idle dreams… to allegorize is to juggle with Scripture… If we wish to handle Scripture aright, our effort will be to attain unum, simplicem, germanum, et certum sensum literalem” (Encyclopedia Americana, 1918 edition, Vol. 10, pg. 632). Hence it is with the keenest pleasure that those who hold to the “one faith” of the “one body” (Eph. 4: 3-4) may attest that an allegorical heremeneutic is rarely accepted among Christians professing sound orthodoxy.