# A full preterist response to "When Shall These Things Be?"



## Mayflower (Aug 2, 2009)

A full preterist response to "When Shall These Things Be?"

Amazon.com: House Divided (9781615290086): David A. Green, Edward J. Hassertt, Michael J. Sullivan: Books

Product Description
This book is a Reformed response to Keith Mathison's multi-authored book When Shall These Things Be? which was a critique and condemnation of "hyper-preterism." Samuel Frost, David Green, Edward Hassertt and Michael Sullivan demonstrate that the advent of full preterism in church history is the result of "organic development" from within the historic, Reformed church, and that it represents the uniting of the divided house of Reformed eschatology. As the authors navigate through the confusing maze of the Mathison volume, they overturn the arguments that the authors of that book levied against the truth that Jesus Himself taught in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2009)

Full-preterism or hyper-preterism is a Satanic heresy that has taken hold of those that are liable to be "tossed about with every wind of doctrine" and are filled with an insane pride that they are wiser than 2,000 years of historic Christianity.

Hyper-preterism has nothing in common with the Reformed faith, any more than poison has anything in common with nourishing food.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 2, 2009)

The term "hyper" is being used a lot. (e.g. "hyper" Calvinism is used often by those who do not understand Calvinism itself).

In the same way, "hyper" is used to describe "preterism" when "preterism" is what it is.

But, unlike Calvinism, which is biblical and consistent, "preterism" is at least inconsistent- whether it be termed "hyper" or "partial" or whatever. 

It has some elements of truth (e.g. the judgments on Jerusalem and the Temple literally came to pass), but not at all right in it's assertion that all "the" judgment fell then. It is especially misguided in holding or even infering that was Christ's second coming, God's final judgment, etc. 

Those aspects or even inferences of those things are not biblical whether one uses the term "hyper" or "partial" or whatever.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 2, 2009)

Well this is it. Even "partial preterists" like myself, should make clear that it's not Christ's Second Advent that's being described in Matthew 24:4-35, but Christ's providential coming in judgment on Jerusalem, and the judgemental sign that He is reigning in Heaven at God's right hand. And it is described with liberal use of Old Testament style prophetic metaphor. 

And this passage: _and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.(Matt 24:30b)_ may not be referring to a figurative coming of the Son of Man to Jerusalem on the clouds, but to the Danielic approach of the Son of Man to the Father to receive His kingdom:

_I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14) _


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> The term "hyper" is being used a lot. (e.g. "hyper" Calvinism is used often by those who do not understand Calvinism itself).
> 
> In the same way, "hyper" is used to describe "preterism" when "preterism" is what it is.
> 
> ...



I disagree. This is what hyper-preterists desire. They work hard to remove the 'hyper' moniker as to appear orthodox. But 'hyper' in the case of theological classifications means 'beyond orthodoxy'. HPs would like you to believe they are just preterists with a slight 'tweak'. If this were so, why would preterists such as Gentry oppose them so vehemently?


----------



## Grillsy (Aug 3, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Well this is it. Even "partial preterists" like myself, should make clear that it's not Christ's Second Advent that's being described in Matthew 24:4-35, but Christ's providential coming in judgment on Jerusalem, and the judgemental sign that He is reigning in Heaven at God's right hand. And it is described with liberal use of Old Testament style prophetic metaphor.
> 
> And this passage: _and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.(Matt 24:30b)_ may not be referring to a figurative coming of the Son of Man to Jerusalem on the clouds, but to the Danielic approach of the Son of Man to the Father to receive His kingdom:
> 
> _I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Dan. 7:13-14) _


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

BTW, does anyone know anything about the pulisher, "Vision Publishing"?


----------



## Roldan (Aug 3, 2009)

What a waste of paper and ink.......


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian (Aug 3, 2009)

*Ricky Ro,

Let's go half on one of those books so after we read it we can burn it literally in my back yard...LOL...Put it on Youtube...LOL...

But I'm definately going to copp this book. Frost book Essays on the Resurrection of the dead is good Fiction. I at least know where they are coming from.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

KMK said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > The term "hyper" is being used a lot. (e.g. "hyper" Calvinism is used often by those who do not understand Calvinism itself).
> ...



If I'm understanding you correctly, you would say the "hyper" is way outside the bounds of "preterism," something different in substance not even having to do with real "preterism" (e.g. analogous case of "hyper Calvinism" is not Calvinism at all).

If that is the case, so this can be understood by all, can you address these points:

1) Define preterism
2) Define "hyper" and "partial"
3) Kim Riddlebarger in _The Case for Amillennialism_ pretty much says any form of preterism is unbiblical because it supplants the second coming and final judgment- what are your thoughts on that?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2009)

1)Preterism (orthodox) is the belief that some of the New Testament prophecies are past. Many orthodox scholars believe that at least part of the "Olivet Discourse" refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Futurist (Dispensationalist) scholars on the other hand believe that all of the Olivet Discourse is in the future.

Hyper-preterists are unorthodox and heretical because they insanely believe that the Second Coming, Resurrection and Last judgment are all past. Historic Christianity has always held that these things will happen at the end of the world, and not just in figures/metaphors. 

2) Hyper in hyper-preterism and hyper-Calvinism refers to those that take such doctrines out of orthodox balance to unbiblical extremes. They may say that they're following things to their logical conclusions, but if these supposed logical conclusions disagree with the Word of God, they should be rejected.

3) It doesn't. In "When Shall These Things Be?" Gentry and others show numerous verses that they believe to refer to the climactic events of the end of the world, rather than the destruction of Jerusalem.

I tend to follow a more hstorical-preterist or pretero-historicist approach than Gentry. He puts everything in Revelation up to chapter 19 into the first century. I would see the events of Chapters 6 to 19 as extending from just before the destruction of Jerusalem to the point in the future when Christ by His Gospel has defeated all His enemies, and the Silver Age of world Christianity and peace begins. With such a difficult book, I hold my views with a pinch of salt, and am willing to be corrected. 

I don't know if when people go to extremes in this, are they sometimes reacting to the complications and zaniness of the dominant dispensational eschatology?


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

> Matthew 24
> 
> 1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
> 
> ...



It seems v.2 is talking about the destruction of the Temple and incredible sacking of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 AD. After that, it becomes unclear exactly what time or events are being described.

In v.2 Jesus was looking out over the Temple stone walls and the Roman army came in with huge catapult stones to absolutely crush the Temple to the ground in the generation that Jesus was speaking in. Some who heard Him likely saw it fulfilled in their life times.

Doesn't virtually everyone, every "position" agree that about v.2? Isn't it only the following versus where it is unclear?

Understanding v.2 is talking about the destruction of that Temple doesn't make one a Preterist, does it?


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> 1)Preterism (orthodox) is the belief that some of the New Testament prophecies are past. Many orthodox scholars believe that at least part of the "Olivet Discourse" refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
> 
> Futurist (Dispensationalist) scholars on the other hand believe that all of the Olivet Discourse is in the future.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

No disrespect intended to bible commentators generally, but here's what happens when too many "commentators" get a hold of something- Theopedia's definition of "preterism" v "futurism"



> *Preterism* is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that *some or all *of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ's birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled.
> 
> *Preterism* is most dramatically contrasted with Futurism, the view that *most prophecies regarding the End times*, and passages referring to Last Days, Great Tribulation, and Judgment are still future and will immediately precede the return of Christ. Proponents of preterist views generally fall in one of two categories: *Partial Preterism or Full Preterism*.



It would seem by this definition that since the vast majority of people take _some_ prophecy to be fulfilled when the Roman General Titus destroyed the Temple, sacked Jerusalem and pillaged the nation in 70AD, everyone is at least "partial." (I'm not inclined to believe then, that most everyone is some sort of what is called "preterist" because it has to mean more than that to have meaning.)

But I don't buy that- it's more than that because for example, Mr. Riddlebarger refutes "preterism" and yet, best I can tell, thinks a few places do describe Israel's destruction in 70 AD. It seems preterism is much more substantively than that- and that's why few people describe themselves by that term.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2009)

Personally, I go along with Marcellus Kik's analysis which has Matt. 24:4-35 about the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the sign that the Son of Man has received the whole earth as His Kingdom from the Father, rather than just the Land of Israel which was an OT type of the whole earth; and which has Matt. 24:36 - Matt. 25:46 about the Second Advent and Christ's second Advent for us (and for most) which is death.

In Matthew 24:4-35 there may be foreshadowings also of the Second Advent, but our Lord says emphatically that the events of 4-35 will happen in a generation, whereas - in contrast - He says "That Day" 's timing is known only to the Father, and after verse 35 uses parables rather than giving signs which are centred on Israel and Jerusalem. Some of these parables indicate that He will be away for a long time, presumably a lot longer than 40 years.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Personally, I go along with Marcellus Kik's analysis which has Matt. 24:4-35 about the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the sign that the Son of Man has received the whole earth as His Kingdom from the Father, and which has Matt. 24:36 - Matt. 25:46 about the Second Advent and Christ's second Advent for us (and for most) which is death.



But you would agree that v.2 "no stone left upon another" forecast the coming destruction of that Temple in 70 AD?


----------



## Roldan (Aug 3, 2009)

I believe in double fulfillment


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I go along with Marcellus Kik's analysis which has Matt. 24:4-35 about the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the sign that the Son of Man has received the whole earth as His Kingdom from the Father, and which has Matt. 24:36 - Matt. 25:46 about the Second Advent and Christ's second Advent for us (and for most) which is death.
> ...



Yes, of course. I was just referring to our Lord's discourse from v.4 itself.

I certainly agree that in this judgment on Jerusalem, there is an anticipation of the final Advent and judgment. This is a feature of many prophecies of judgment in the Old Testament, but it's even more pronounced here.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...



Okay (and I realize this question was originally response to KMK, but thanks for your input and understanding on this), then is it fair to say that it takes a lot more than the most common interpretation of v.2 to make one a "preterist"? 

If so, what more? Anyone?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2009)

To be honest with you, partly because of hyper-preterism, and partly because of what I see in Scripture, I'm wary even of Gentry's orthodox preterism which would put everything from Revelation 6 to 19 into the first century.

I'm more of an historical preterist or pretero-historicist. I see everything from Revelation 6 to 19 stretching from just before the destruction of Jerusalem to the point at which Christ puts all His enemies under His feet in history.

With difficult passages like the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation, I always hold ny views with a pinch of salt and am willing to learn, be corrected. But I'm wary of becoming _too_ hyper in preterism. 

David Chilton - the Reconstructionist - apparently slipped from orthodox to hyper-preterism.

I don't see all of Gentry's or even Bahnsen's preterism in Revelation, although I learnt from Bahnsen's tapes on the subject. 

E.g. Gentry makes Babylon to be 1st century Jerusalem; Bahnsen believed it was Rome, capital of the Empire; I tend to think that it is the apostate Church, headed by Romanism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 3, 2009)

Full Preterism, the Hymenaean Heresy

"But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, 
and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are *Hymenaeus* and Philetus, who have *swerved from the truth*, saying that *the resurrection has already happened*. They are upsetting the faith of some."
2 Tim:2:16-18

Nothing left to say.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2009)

Bruce hit the nail right on the head and beat me to the punch. Of course the Hyper-Preterists will argue that because the epistle of II Timothy was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem that the argument from this text is moot.

Believe me, Hyper-Preterism is a dangerous and growing heresy. I'm having to deal with it in close quarters.


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Full Preterism, the Hymenaean Heresy
> 
> "But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
> and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are *Hymenaeus* and Philetus, who have *swerved from the truth*, saying that *the resurrection has already happened*. They are upsetting the faith of some."
> ...



Unfortunately, the HPs seem to have a great deal left to say.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 3, 2009)

That such teaching can take hold, shows how unstable some evangelicals and Reformed can be. Likewise with the NPP and Federal Vision.

May we be saved from such postmodern instability of mind and heart. The amount of confusion the Evil One is sowing is extraordinary. Words like "evangelical" and "Reformed" are almost emptied of meaning apart from careful definition. You know what you mean by these words, but does the guy sitting next to you in church, know. Confessionalism has always been essential, but even more so in this foolish and unstable generation. 

_Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. (I Cor. 10:12)_


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 3, 2009)

*First-hand Information*

Hello,
My name is Roderick Edwards, for 15 years until 2007 I *WAS* a hyperpreterist. Further, I initially was a contributor to the hyperpreterist book of topic until I renounced the heresy of hyperpreterism & left the movement (ref 1). With such background, I'd like to offer first-hand information about the book & the authors behind the book. I encourage readers to follow the reference links as I want to make sure I am accurately representing things.

First the men behind it.

*Dave Green*, the editor. Green has been a hyperpreterist since the early 1990s, perhaps longer. He advocates under hyperpreterism that there is no more need for people to be baptized (ref 2) or take the Lord's Supper (ref 3). Therefore, Green is perhaps one of the more "consistent" hyperpreterist, besides perhaps the universalists hyperpreterists.

*Ed Hassertt*, not much can be said for Hassert. He has been fairly low-level within the hyperpreterist movement. He mainly frequents a few message boards & has a reputation of being harsh. I know some important points about his personal life but that is not appropriate at this time.

*Mike Sullivan*, Sullivan is also a low-level hyperpreterist though he fancies himself some sort of scholar. He runs a one-man "ministry" devoted to promoting hyperpreterism. He has a reputation for horrible grammar & spelling abilities, but is better known for his brash comments. He advocates polygamy as being acceptable (ref 4), though Jesus specifically in Mt 19:1-8, makes God's original intent known -- one man with one woman. Making arguments that the patriarchs had multiple wives doesn't change the original intent God has for husband & wife.

*Sam Frost*, is the only one of the group that has any real formal training & he is sure to let you know it. He has a reputation as a braggart & a narcissist. He was kicked off another hyperpreterist effort to produce a response to WSTTB & he left yet another one so he could ask to be part of this one -- since only the first response would be considered. (ref 5) Frost came on at the last minute after I left the project. 

Now, I have not read the book that was produced, yet I WAS privy to parts of it as it was being produced & one factor that helped me leave hyperpreterism was a question I asked of the authors while we were considering the book. The question is as follows:

_“How do they deal with the fact that early post-AD70 Christians didn’t seem to see in the AD70 event, the things full preterists claim?” 
_​
At the time, Sullivan was really the only one to respond & his response told me all I needed to know:

_“I am the last person to ask that question. I just haven't given myself to a deep study of that subject yet.”_ (*Hyperpreterist Michael Sullivan on the question of how the early Christians didn’t seem to see the hyperpreterist premises & conclusions*)​
I thought to myself, even as a hyperpreterist; then this guy is the LAST PERSON who should be writing a book on this topic. This is pivotal since before you even get to the proof-texts that hyperpreterists use, you should understand that their overarching premise is that God/Jesus/the apostles/Holy Spirit were either unwilling or unable to maintain within the community of saints, even a small group that supposedly would hold to the "true eschatology" of hyperpreterism. This is significant. Hyperpreterism MUST see God as a failure. It MUST see 2000 years of Christians as either dumb or distorters. Hyperpreterism MUST replace the faith that has been lived, believed & for which Christians have died, with the lie of hyperpreterism.

Now, as for the book. You have heard the expression; _"don't judge a book by its cover"_ -- but in this case I urge you to judge this book by how it is being promoted. First, on the backcover of the book is the phrase, "A Must Read!" & 5 stars. When someone asked Dave Green where this quote came from, Green admitted:

_"The "A Must Read!" blurb is just a marketing gimmick. I've seen it on other books. Our cover guy (Mark Chiacchira) put it there. He was quoting himself. "_ (*Hyperpreterist Dave Green admitting the recommendation on the back of his book is a marketing gimmick -- a lie* -- ref 6)​
These quotes usually come from a credible source or a third-party source that has reviewed the book -- not from the participants of the book itself.

Further, if you go to the Amazon link where the book is posted, you will see that 3 of the authors reviewed their own book (ref 7). Pure arrogance to go along with the arrogance of hyperpreterism in general, which must see Christianity as wrong & themselves as bringers of a supposed lost/hidden "truth".

The content of the reviews from the authors is even more revealing. Mike Sullivan says:

_"This book marks the official commencement of the debate between the declining and crumbling futurist position and the rising and coherent preterist position within church history. This is a theological statement equivalent to that of Luther's Ninety-Five theses."_ (*Hyperpreterist Mike Sullivan arrogantly reviewing his own book* -- ref 8)​
Really?? This guy actually thinks his self-published book is equal to Luther's 95-Theses? Luther's Theses began a momentous reform not just in theology but in the civil & social realms. Do these hyperpreterists really think that highly of themselves??? Again, hyperpreterism is sheer arrogance before you even get to the proof-texting. I have not bought the book, nor will my conscience allow it. If a hyperpreterist wants to send me an e-copy of it, maybe I'll read it & give more details but 15 years within the movement & knowing these men first-hand, I'm not certain what I would find that is not already known about them & their views.

Lastly, beware. I know for a fact that hyperpreterists are on PB, though according to the rules they shouldn't be. Yet, that is how they operate, in darkness & always trying to come in unawares.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 3, 2009)

> Lastly, beware. I know for a fact that hyperpreterists are on PB, though according to the rules they shouldn't be. Yet, that is how they operate, in darkness & always trying to come in unawares.



Yep, that is their tactic. And most folks would be very surprised to learn the depths of the infiltration that takes place. Not just on the internet, but in their churches. This is serious battle, folks. I think of it as Eschatological CQB. Seriously. If you are pastor / elder you'd better get sharp on what these folks are teaching, doing, and how they work. They can rip the guts out of a church. And, all the while appear like they are the martyrs.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 3, 2009)

I take it full preterism = hyper preterism.

Also, it seems futurism(sp?) is the opposite of preterism.

Would anyone like to differentiate the three forms of preterism:

1) full, hyper
2) (mere) preterism
3) partial preterism

Also, as this is difficult to follow, if one believes Matthew 24:2 is speaking of the temple being destroyed, does this mean someone must be termed some sort of preterist?


----------



## DonP (Aug 3, 2009)

Clarity and Consistency shows Full Preterism is obvious, it is all past.

Therefore Hyper Preterism must go beyond this into other errors, like no sacraments, etc. 

To hold that some is past is Partial Preterism ie. Part is past. 

For a Partial Preterist to claim he is a Preterist and others are hyper does not make sense. 

Its either all past or some past or none past. 

So Full, Partial or Non-Pretorist would be the main terms. 

We should no allow the Term Pretorist to be acceptable. That would be confusing. 

One must distinguish himself from a Pretorist by saying I am a Partial Pretorist if he only holds part is past. 


Just as a Calvinist in Soteriology holds to all of what Calvin did, all 5 points. 
We say one is a partial Calvinist who holds to less 

A hyper-Calvinist goes beyond all of Calvin's 5 points and other teachings. He holds to hyper-predestination and no human responsibility, or presumptive regeneration or no need to call people to repentance in the covenant people, and not free offer of the gospel since all who will be saved will be saved and God can not offer honestly what He does not intend to give. 

These would be hyper Calvinism. 

To say one who holds to *all *is past is a hyper-preterist, would be the same as saying one who holds to *all *5 points is a hyper-Calvinists . 

So to those who hold that some is past I suggest to prevent confusing those you seek to help, let go of the term Preterist to the heretics and call yourself what in fact you are a Partial Preterist

Then you can argue with other Partials, which parts and verses are past or not. 

And with those who don't care knowing it was a type of His eternal rule and building the new church/temple of living stones, His Body, New Jerusalem. 

All of these having dual meanings. His body is the temple and we are the temple, etc. 

Be careful of seeking a literalist interpretation of Jewish figurative language esp. in prophecy. What Jesus said was a prophecy not a literal doctrine. 
It could have multiple levels of meaning as other prophecy does. 

Personally I do not see a forever rule now. I see though He does rule, it ends. And a New Jerusalem is set up and then He rules forever. 
Just as I see the Jewish kingdom ended and did not go forever. 
So the physical aspect,type, ends and is fulfilled in the spiritual future reality. 

I do not see it all as one continuous flow that never ended. That would be to eliminate the distinction between the earthly and the spiritual. The carnal and the Heavenly. 

God cannot improve the earthly, He must destroy it and make a new heaven and earth.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 4, 2009)

*Preterism/Futurism Defined*



Scott1 said:


> I take it full preterism = hyper preterism.
> 
> Also, it seems futurism(sp?) is the opposite of preterism.
> 
> ...



Hi Scott, the terms & definitions themselves are often muddled, but let's take a look.

Historically speaking there has been no school of theology that classified itself as "preterist", nor "futurist" for that matter. These labels are of recent origin. Technically, ALL Christians are "preterists" AND "futurists" since ALL Christians believe some NT events/prophecies were fulfilled in the past & some are yet future. However, there is a difference when we get into the movement called "hyperpreterism". It is called HYPER because it goes beyond the original scope & intent of the historical meaning of preterist. It was the hyperpreterists that have been trying to label the historic version of preterism as merely "partial-preterism" but this is like a Hyper-Calvinist claiming historic Calvinists are only "partial-Calvinist". I guess I'm trying to point out that Hyperpreterists have high-jacked the term as much as the homosexual movement has high-jacked the term "gay", which as you know originally meant happy. Now, many hyperpreterists claim they are simply, "Preterist". So, navigating this all can be confusing & they like it that way.

*DEFINING THE KINDS OF PRETERISM/FUTURISM*
*
Historic Preterism* (sometimes erroneously called "partial-preterism", really just, historic Christianity pre-dispensationalism)
Believes AD70 destruction of Temple & Jerusalem is related in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24/Mk 13/Lk 21) but still advocates a future return of Christ, a future bodily resurrection of the believers, a future judgment of the wicked & righteous, a future culmination of the world.

*Hyperpreterism* (sometimes called Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Fulfilled Eschatology, Realized Eschatology, & erronenously just "Preterism")
Believes Jesus came back once & for all in the 1st-century, that the resurrection of the believers happened in the 1st-century & was not physical, that the judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in the 1st-century, that there will be no end to sin & no culmination of the world. There are variations of these beliefs as hyperpreterism is made up of a group of individualistic private interpreters.

*Futurism* (this is an artificial label most implemented by hyperpreterists to try to level the playing field. In actuality, hyperpreterists must claim all Christianity are futurists. Often you will see dispensationalists depicted as futurists when as I stated ALL Christians are at least somewhat futurists) Futurism is NOT the opposite of Preterism since these labels are incorrectly used. It is more accurate to label it Christians versus Heretics since whether you look at pre-Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, or Modern Evangelical, ALL of these historic expressions of Christianity have AGREED on the exact things hyperpreterism wants us to deny.

As for Mt 24:2, take a look at almost ANY historic Christian commentary & you will find almost ALL of them agreed that Mt 24:2 was talking about the destruction of the Herodian Temple in AD70, YET none of them advocated the heresy of hyperpreterism. This is significant to note. 
*
Commentaries on Mt 24:2*

*1599 Geneva Bible:* The destruction of the city, and especially of the temple is foretold. (ref)
*John Gill:* both the city and temple were dug up, and laid level with the ground (ref)
*Matthew Henry:* he [Jesus] not only went out of the temple, but departed from it, took his final farewell of it; he departed from it, never to return to it any more; and then immediately follows a prediction of its ruin. (ref)
*John Calvin:* by this dreadful example, to take vengeance on that nation, for having rejected his Son, and despised the grace which was brought by him. (ref)

The understanding that Mt 24:2 relates to the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple is not new, nor is it exclusively "preterist" -- it is simply the historic Christian interpretation. Hyperpreterists like to find people who aren't aware of this & then make themselves look really intelligent compared to all the "Left Behind" junk floating around today.

Don't buy into these labels & instead see the continuity of the community of saints for what it is. Don't let hyperpreterists fool you into believing 2000 years of Christianity has somehow been duped or dumb. As you can see from the commentaries I supplied, historic Christianity understood this long before hyperpreterists came along & distorted it. I hope this helped.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 4, 2009)

Thanks, Roderick for the definitions and background.

Very helpful.

I take it the heart of the matter is what you said here (removing the word "technically")


> ... ALL Christians are "preterists" AND "futurists" since ALL Christians believe some NT events/prophecies were fulfilled in the past & some are yet future.



There is a lot of semantical division and anguish caused by the fluidity of the definitions since it is not a question of "if" someone believes any prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD and others are yet to be fulfilled, but whether certain key passages have been.

That's why it would seem that in order for the term to have any meaning, one would need to see Matthew 24, in the main, to be all speaking of what happened in 70 A.D.

That's possible, but best case as I see it now, that is unclear.

The notion that the "second coming" happened in 70 A.D. is serious error and needs to be rebuked.

Since the biblical case is at best unclear on Matthew 24, I wouldn't assume either of the labels offered here, and the baggage and rabbit trails they contain.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 4, 2009)

*Quote from Roderick*
_Hyperpreterists like to find people who aren't aware of this & then make themselves look really intelligent compared to all the "Left Behind" junk floating around today._

Are many Hyper-preterists disillusioned Dispensationalists, or do they come from a range of backgrounds?


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 4, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Roderick*
> _Hyperpreterists like to find people who aren't aware of this & then make themselves look really intelligent compared to all the "Left Behind" junk floating around today._
> 
> Are many Hyper-preterists disillusioned Dispensationalists, or do they come from a range of backgrounds?



Most of the hyper-preterists that I run into are former dispensationalists. The others seem to come from churches that did little or no teaching on Biblical eschatology, regardless of the eschatological position of that church.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 4, 2009)

*Hyperpreterist Origins*



Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from Roderick*
> _Hyperpreterists like to find people who aren't aware of this & then make themselves look really intelligent compared to all the \"Left Behind\" junk floating around today._
> 
> Are many Hyper-preterists disillusioned Dispensationalists, or do they come from a range of backgrounds?



Thanks for the question Richard,
It is accurate to say many hyperpreterists are disillusioned "Left Behinders" (I use that term because a Left Behinder need not be a full-blown Dispensationalist). However, if we get more specific, the first & still most active hyperpreterist "teachers" come from the denomination of "church of Christ" -- coC. (Max King, Tim King, Don Preston, William Bell, Terry Hall, Virgil Vaduva, Jack Scott, Kurt Simmons, Ed Stevens & more). This is an important factor because of the premise that coC is built upon allows for the rise of hyperpreterism.

As you may know, coC came out of an era called "Restorationism" (ref) in the mid-late 1800s. Restorationism advocated that the true Church & true Gospel ceased to exist & had to be "restored". Now, before someone thinks it, restorationism isn't like Reformation. Reformation does NOT see an overall cessation of the Church & the Gospel, but more accurately the Reformers opposed the Papists distortion of historic Christianity. Interestingly, other groups that came out of the Restoration movement are the JWs & Mormons....all of these groups had the same template -- that the Church failed & they were here to "restore" it. This is EXACTLY the same template of hyperpreterism, that for 2000 years Christians of all sorts have been living & dying for a faith that hyperpreterists claims is a gross error. It is NOT just about eschatology since all "ologies" affect all other "ologies".

So, yes many hyperpreterists are former "Left Behinders" who then use that to dupe new people into hyperpreterism, after all, if we were just comparing "Left Behindism" with Hyperpreterism; Hyperpreterism does "look" more biblical. Hyperpreterists don't seem to ever tell or perhaps understand that most of Christianity pre-dispensationalism have interpreted much of the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24/Mk 13/Lk 21) as related to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem & the Herodian Temple without having gone HYPER into hyperpreterism.

I like what Samuel Miller had to say about heresies & it fits hyperpreterism to a T.



> _\"When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the \"old dead orthodoxy,\" and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they \"differ from it only in words.\" This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries [& hyperpreterists in the twenty-first century -- my addition because it fits so well in this list of heresies]. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions.\"_
> -*Samuel Miller, 1841*


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 4, 2009)

So they swing not from the sublime to the ridiculous, but _from the ridiculous to the heretical._ Very sad.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 7, 2009)

*Hyperpret's reply to PB*

The hyperpreterist authors of the book in question have been watching the interaction on PB.

Yes yes, everyone is soooooo "afraid" of the hyperpreterists. I keep pointing out that the hyperpreterist movement uses the same tactics as the homosexual movement.: First they seek "tolerance", then "acceptance", then superiority. All the while they claim anyone who will not go along with them is a bigot or "phobic" (afraid). No, rather we are DISGUSTED both with the homosexual agenda & the hyperpreterist agenda.

Notice also how they re-label ALL of historic Christianity as "futurists". There is NO SUCH THING. There is not one Christian that believes ALL N.T. prophecy is yet future. ALL Christians are preteristic & futuristic. The only true dichotomy to hyperpreterism is Christians vs heretics.

Hyperprets often try to equate themselves with the Reformers & with Luther but in reality, hyperpreterism is more akin to the radicals or "enthusiasts" of the Reformation such as Andreas Karlstadt or Thomas Munzter who like the hyperprets wanted to chuck all of Christian history & make up something new & call it "Christianity". Luther had Scripture AND all of Christian history pre-Papalism on his side. The hyperprets only have their private interpretations.

Further, hyperprets are more akin to the Arians who attempted to redefine Christianity...even using the "Bible alone" (al bet it grossly misinterpreted). Interestingly, hyperpret leader Samuel Frost (one of the authors of the book in question) even unwittingly compares hyperpreterism to Arianism:



> “Now my question is when did we do this for the second coming of Christ? When have we had these councils & Arius that came up & said ‘Hey, ‘, because afterall we became Trinitarians because there was a guy named Arius who stood up & said, `Hey I think Jesus was the first created being. I don’t think he was an eternal being.’ Then you had a lot of people begin saying, ‘Now wait a minute here.’ & they began to go back to the Scriptures & they began to fight for hundreds of years & they finally came out with what you know we have at Chalcedon..you know Nicean Chalcedon. But somebody rose their hand up & said, ‘Hey can I challenge this?’ & that’s all..that’s what I’m doing I’m asking, ‘Can I challenge this? Can I question -he shall come again and judge the living & the dead- Can we…can I question that? ‘ (you gotta hear him actually say it — source)



Frost believes _"we are trinitarians because of Arius"_ -- really??? Rather, the concept of Christ's deity & the Trinity were ALREADY the accepted teaching within Christianity. Heresies caused the Church to call councils to CLARIFY what was ALREADY the belief. The hyperprets want to compare themselves to Arians, go for it!

Lastly, Frost in Jan 2002 made himself a "pastor" of a hyperpret congregation. He claimed he had right to do so because of an "unsettled condition" in the Church.



> \"_ knew that the doctrine of [hyper]preterism was truly reformational in proportions to the handed down traditions on this matter. It was not a mere disagreement, but a complete overhaul in many areas of thought. Therefore, in acting accord with Presbyterian principles (of unsettled condition)  was justified in establishing an Independent Reformed Church.” (source pg 2)
> _


_

The UNITED eschatology of historic Christianity is NOT an "unsettled condition" -- again, whether we look at pre-Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, or Modern Evangelical -- ALL of these expressions of historic Christianity AGREED & were SETTLED on the exact 4 things that hyperpreterism DENIES. A difference of millennial views does not constitute an "unsettled condition" & certainly doesn't "justify" a man making himself a "pastor" of a heretical congregation & calling it "Reformed"._


----------



## DonP (Aug 7, 2009)

Wow they sound like a solid cult. 

Since the church is unsettled does that mean god gives any of us that wants to, to be ministers of the word. 

Wow that it easier than a diploma mill.


----------



## KMK (Aug 8, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> The hyperpreterist authors of the book in question have been watching the interaction on PB.
> 
> Yes yes, everyone is soooooo "afraid" of the hyperpreterists. I keep pointing out that the hyperpreterist movement uses the same tactics as the homosexual movement.: First they seek "tolerance", then "acceptance", then superiority. All the while they claim anyone who will not go along with them is a bigot or "phobic" (afraid). No, rather we are DISGUSTED both with the homosexual agenda & the hyperpreterist agenda.
> 
> ...


_

What is ironic is the HPs are actually the Papists. They believe they have the authority to tell the church what the Word of God says. 

Let us not forget, however, that it is charity that edifieth; knowledge only puffeth up._


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 8, 2009)

So, to clarify:

What is the difference between "preterism" (not hyper or full) and "partial preterism"?


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 8, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> So, to clarify:
> 
> What is the difference between "preterism" (not hyper or full) and "partial preterism"?




What is called 'partial preterism' today was called 'preterism' before there was such a thing as 'hyper-preterism'.


----------



## KMK (Aug 8, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > So, to clarify:
> ...



It is unfortunate the HPs have succeeded in redefining the terms.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 9, 2009)

*I kid you not....*



KMK said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



It gets even worse. One hyperpreterist ACTUALLY at one point tried to trademark the term "preterism" -- he even registered with the U.S. Trademark office, but never followed through -- here is the link

Further, this same hyperpret guy who more or less has dictated the wikipedia entry on "preterism", so as to spin it in favor of hyperpreterism actually threatened to sue wikipedia if it didn't let him dictate how the entry was presented. He claimed that if people presented it as heretical, it would "_create busniess losses for his organization_" here is the link to that. Notice also how he LIED, since obviously he DIDN'T actually obtain the trademark but threatened to sue wikipedia as if he did own it.

Folks, I don't make this stuff up. You can follow the links. It is all there. Hyperpreterism is whacked even BEFORE you get to its proof-texts.


----------



## re4med (Aug 9, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > Lastly, beware. I know for a fact that hyperpreterists are on PB, though according to the rules they shouldn't be. Yet, that is how they operate, in darkness & always trying to come in unawares.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that is their tactic. And most folks would be very surprised to learn the depths of the infiltration that takes place. Not just on the internet, but in their churches. This is serious battle, folks. I think of it as Eschatological CQB. Seriously. If you are pastor / elder you'd better get sharp on what these folks are teaching, doing, and how they work. They can rip the guts out of a church. And, all the while appear like they are the martyrs.


 
Yes, sadly many elders in our reformed churches are just now starting to understand what is at stake. I certainly cannot speak about all Reformed churches but the general admonition would apply: Those men whom God has called to protect His flock need to be aware of this serious matter. It is not going away and it will only destroy. In our Reformed churches right now I am sure that there are hyperpreterists feeding at the same table of our Lord Jesus Christ and working behind the scenes (through different venues) to promote and propagate their views. Much is at stake.

-----Added 8/9/2009 at 07:25:59 EST-----



> Hyper-preterists are unorthodox and heretical because they insanely believe that the Second Coming, Resurrection and Last Judgment are all past. Historic Christianity has always held that these things will happen at the end of the world, and not just in figures/metaphors.


 
Yes, this is the heart of the issue (with all its implications). I have an email from one supporter of hyperpreterism who thinks that this is just a matter of *disagreement* because there is disagreement within the various eschatological frameworks (i.e. amil, postmil, partial preterism, premil). However, what this HP failed to see (or admit) is that within all these systems the conclusion is always the same: a future coming of Christ and a future bodily resurrection of the dead. There may be disagreements as to the specifics of each system but the conclusion is always the same. Only the HP's depart radically from the other eschatological systems (even dispensationalist eschatology).


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 9, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...



It's horrific. It truly is a living, breathing, theological nightmare sprung from the Pit.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 9, 2009)

Okay, so before the term "preterist" or "partial preterist" was imposed on a general view that some Scripture was fulfilled in 70AD, was this approach called anything?

Why can't one merely believe a few select places in Scripture were prophesying 70AD (as prophecy is fulfilled historically in other areas) and avoid the term "preterist" (of any sort)?


----------



## KMK (Aug 9, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Okay, so before the term "preterist" or "partial preterist" was imposed on a general view that some Scripture was fulfilled in 70AD, was this approach called anything?
> 
> Why can't one merely believe a few select places in Scripture were prophesying 70AD (as prophecy is fulfilled historically in other areas) and avoid the term "preterist" (of any sort)?



There are so many variations in eschatalogical viewpoints that labels are pretty much useless anyway.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 11, 2009)

*Be careful ;-)*



KMK said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, so before the term "preterist" or "partial preterist" was imposed on a general view that some Scripture was fulfilled in 70AD, was this approach called anything?
> ...



Be careful KMK  -- if I was a hyperpret I'd say something like, _"See, the orthodox guys even admit that there is no agreement on eschatology"_ -- although I know you're not saying that.

In retrospect, I now claim that eschatology is ACTUALLY the most UNIFIED doctrine of the Church -- consider, whether a person is a Calvinist, an Arminian, a Pelgian, a Modalist, a paedo-baptist, or any other label you can think of; ALL of them have agreed on the core of eschatology. So, labels are only good for shorthand & still require an amount of clarification.

The problem is, hyperpreterists have high-jacked terminology just as homosexuals have high-jacked the word "gay" & how the media calls one group "pro-choice" but the other group "anti-abortionist". There is no doubt about it; whoever defines the terms dictates the direction of the discussion & that is why hyperpreterists are so desperate to redefine everything.


----------



## KMK (Aug 11, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



I get what you are saying, however, I doubt the HP would refer to us as the 'orthodox' guys. They might refer to us as 'blind' or 'deceived', however.


----------



## RoderickE (Aug 21, 2009)

*Hyperprets Thrashed*

Hyperpret "presumed scholar", Samuel Frost and his co-authors of this hyperpret book were theologically thrashed by Frost's mentor and president of Whitefield Theological Seminary; Dr. Kenneth Talbot:


Download in MSWord Format
Download in Adobe PDF Format


----------

