Monday, July 19, 2010

Chris Calls In to "Stand to Reason"

Some of you may be familiar with Greg Koukl's "Stand to Reason" apologetics ministry. They have a weekly radio show, archived in podcast form, and I've recently begun listening. In a couple of recent episodes, callers in have asked about preterism, and Greg (and the callers in) has distinguished between preterism and hyperpreterism using the abhorrent "partial" and "full" prefixes, against which Dee Dee Warren of the Preterist Podcast has rightfully railed (see this blog post, a shorter version of Dee Dee's article, "Perfuming the Hog").

Being new to Greg's show but having developed a respect for him and his aim toward teaching Christians how to think, rather than merely what to think, I decided I'd call in and humbly request that he change his terminology. I agree with Dee Dee that the terminology we employ is important, and likewise wrote about it in "A War Over Words". If you would like to listen to my discussion with Greg, check out his podcast and listen to July 18th's show, "Reflections on UK Vacation." I was the first caller in the second hour of the show, and you can fast forward to 00:59:43 if you want to skip to my call.

Now, keep in mind I was terribly nervous; I've struggled with stage fright all my life. As such, I likely spoke too quickly at times, missed certain points I shouldn't have and failed to clarify certain of Greg's statements. For example, I said at one point that preterists would agree to an extent with hyperpreterists concerning the "time texts," but should have clarified that we don't think those refer to the Second Coming. Also, when asked what hyperpreterists think the resurrection was, I said they believe that refers to the spiritual rebirth all Christians undergo, otherwise known as being "born again," but I am not certain that that's the case and should have prefaced my statement with, "I believe" or "I think." Other examples, I'm sure, could be identified (and I encourage you to let me know so I don't make similar mistakes in the future).

Nevertheless, I'm pleased overall with how things went (despite Greg's having mistakenly called it the book of "Revelations;" I can forgive him for that). In the end, Koukl seemed to agree with my reasoning, said I put my request well, and I gather that in the future he will use terminology which more clearly distinguishes the orthodox view from the heretical one. Let me know what you think!