You wrote: we must consider that what Jesus said about not even the gates of hades would prevail against the Church must have some merit.

What did Jesus mean that the gates of Hades wouldn’t prevail against the Church? I take it to mean exactly that: that the Church wouldn’t be subjected to separation from God in the Hadean realm forever, that there was a resurrection to be experienced. To interpret that statement as a promise to the Church of the Holy Spirit’s doctrinal protection is eisegetical, not exegetical.

If doctrinal purity was promised, the Holy Spirit has failed miserably, Roderick. And I can’t accept that. Can you, Roderick, lay out for me pure Christianity and all of its doctrinal points? Are infants to be baptized? Is the Lord’s Supper transubstantive? Is baptism necessary for salvation? I can go on and on, but I think you get my drift. The Church is the entity that has failed, time and time again, to maintain doctrinal purity, not the Holy Spirit.

If the Church lapsed into error so quickly after the apostles left the scene then what does that say about the Soveriegnty & ability of God to guide His Church throughout history?

Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Show me one place in Scripture that speaks to God’s promise to guide His Church (not just His apostles) throughout history to wit, that doctrinal unity was to be maintained. Show me one verse and I’ll send you a check for $100.

You wrote: we must consider that what Jesus said about not even the gates of hades would prevail against the Church must have some merit.

What did Jesus mean that the gates of Hades wouldn’t prevail against the Church? I take it to mean exactly that: that the Church wouldn’t be subjected to separation from God in the Hadean realm forever, that there was a resurrection to be experienced. To interpret that statement as a promise to the Church of the Holy Spirit’s doctrinal protection is eisegetical, not exegetical.

If doctrinal purity was promised, the Holy Spirit has failed miserably, Roderick. And I can’t accept that. Can you, Roderick, lay out for me pure Christianity and all of its doctrinal points? Are infants to be baptized? Is the Lord’s Supper transubstantive? Is baptism necessary for salvation? I can go on and on, but I think you get my drift. The Church is the entity that has failed, time and time again, to maintain doctrinal purity, not the Holy Spirit.

If the Church lapsed into error so quickly after the apostles left the scene then what does that say about the Soveriegnty & ability of God to guide His Church throughout history?

Sounds like a strawman argument to me. Show me one place in Scripture that speaks to God’s promise to guide His Church (not just His apostles) throughout history to wit, that doctrinal unity was to be maintained. Show me one verse and I’ll send you a check for $100.

If the Church lapsed into error so quickly after the apostles left the scene then what does that say about the Soveriegnty & ability of God to guide His Church throughout history?

To be a preterist a person must first must accept 2 things:

1) That “Sola Scriptura” means we can just become private interpreters, deciding even against the totality of 2000+ years of historic Christian interpretation.

2) That the historic Church has failed to properly understand a very important aspect of Jesus’ ministry; eschatology.

Stop for a moment & realize what preterists are claiming here — even before we even consider their specific theology. Do you understand the philosophical arrogance this requires?

I’m not saying this to be mean but you have to admit that when defining “heresy”, preterism of all things should be called heresy — because it is a major, major departure from what has been defined as Christianity, be it early post-apostolic, pre-Roman Catholic, Protestant or otherwise. Preterism is more akin to Mormonism & JWs than with historic Christianity.

I’m saying this as someone who had been & advocated “full preterism” for over 15 years & has finally rejected it as an error.

Read more in line with this thinking: http://www.preteristsite.com/recoveryroom.html

If the Church lapsed into error so quickly after the apostles left the scene then what does that say about the Soveriegnty & ability of God to guide His Church throughout history?

To be a preterist a person must first must accept 2 things:

1) That “Sola Scriptura” means we can just become private interpreters, deciding even against the totality of 2000+ years of historic Christian interpretation.

2) That the historic Church has failed to properly understand a very important aspect of Jesus’ ministry; eschatology.

Stop for a moment & realize what preterists are claiming here — even before we even consider their specific theology. Do you understand the philosophical arrogance this requires?

I’m not saying this to be mean but you have to admit that when defining “heresy”, preterism of all things should be called heresy — because it is a major, major departure from what has been defined as Christianity, be it early post-apostolic, pre-Roman Catholic, Protestant or otherwise. Preterism is more akin to Mormonism & JWs than with historic Christianity.

I’m saying this as someone who had been & advocated “full preterism” for over 15 years & has finally rejected it as an error.

Read more in line with this thinking: http://www.preteristsite.com/recoveryroom.html