# Questions about Preterism



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

Both the recent dating and Historicist threads have tapped into Preterisim, although it's not the topic head, so, to ask my questions I started a new topic.

I have a friend, who is a Hyper-Preterist (among other things). He gave me "Christ's Second Coming Fulfilled", which I read. And I'm reading, "A Critique of Full Preterism and a Defense of Historicistic Post Millennialism" by J. Parnell Mccarter, in my research.

Partial Preterism, Hyper Preterism, and Preterism, are def. on the rise...so, I'm studying it a bit. 

A guy at my church is using Gentry to teach the college group, at my church, which, I was surprised to see, he would be considered a Full Preterist?

I tend to fall in the  category, but, in my studies, the Historicist position and/or one form of the biblical preterist positions are ringing true.

Just some background for you, my main question, is:

1. This friend, is full antinomian, believing the Law is so obsolete, that, there is actually no sin in the world--baffling to me--is this the norm for hyper-preterists? Obviously, this is a ramification, of their believing this is the New Heavens and New Earth, correct?

2. When you say, that the entire Earth, is being resurrected, and, there will be no "stop" point, how, and when, would we receive the resurrected body?

3. Do you have a focus point, you use with hyper preterists, to go to for the full bodily resurrection of the saints?

4. He also holds to a form of reincarnation--although he doesn't call it that. Once again, normal for Hyper Preterists?

I read both threads, I apologize if I missed the answers, I'm just wanting some clear understanding on these positions, before I discuss with my friend and others.

Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2009)

1. He is consistent on that one. Most aren't. He has to teach in some way that we are definitely sanctified, which precludes the sin.

2. Most partial-preterists don't say the earth is being continually resurrected. that just sounds weird. They would say, as would much of Christian orthodoxy, that the earth is being renewed. Besides being more biblical, this alleviates the aforementioned problem.

3. I don't know this one.

I am not partial-preterist, btw. I think it has a better case than historicism, but I disagree with it as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 8, 2009)

Ivanhoe said:


> 1. He is consistent on that one. Most aren't. He has to teach in some way that we are definitely sanctified, which precludes the sin.
> 
> 2. Most partial-preterists don't say the earth is being continually resurrected. that just sounds weird. They would say, as would much of Christian orthodoxy, that the earth is being renewed. Besides being more biblical, this alleviates the aforementioned problem.
> 
> ...



Just as a curiosity question what would you classify yourself as now?


----------



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

*Thanks...*

Thanks J. B., so, you're still researching?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 8, 2009)

Hyper Preterism or Full Preterism is definitely on the rise. And, there are a lot of various streams of implication in that camp. I'm spending quite a bit of time studying it myself. There doesn't seem to be a consistent systematic to it. Noe says one thing; Frost another, and so on. I am becoming convinced that is has become a cult.


----------



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

*I agree*

It has that feel of cult like status, and I notice, many doctrines are questioned along the way, this guy is all over the place on Trinity as well.

Also, is it me, or is it recent, that, Full Preterism, is being used, by people who actually hold to a Second Coming?

If I remember, Mccarter's article, "A critique of full Pret..." is actually, critiquing Hyper Preterism.

I've been using Partial Preterism to define, Gary Demar, or any preterist who believes in the resurrection of the saints, and a Second Coming...but, sounds like, Full Preterists, can hold to that? With only Hyper being the heretical?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 8, 2009)

Trevor,

I have family that are HP (not the printers), and it is a mixed bag. For those that think through the position in its entirety, they are generally:

1. Hard-core antinomian

2. Anti-sacramental

3. Very ignorant

4. Very incapable of interacting with debate from Scripture


One of my relatives is so stuck in Matthew 16 somewhere that he can't even follow a simple set of questions about the fulfillment of God's promises to convert all nations, bring in a golden age, call the Jews, resurrect our bodies and eradicate sin from earth. Scripture after scripture, and he keeps coming back to Matthew 16. Also, they tend to deny the doctrine of hell.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 8, 2009)

tdowns007 said:


> A guy at my church is using Gentry to teach the college group, at my church, which, I was surprised to see, he would be considered a Full Preterist?


I’m confused. What’s the question? Are you saying Gentry would be considered a full preterist, or your friend? Gentry is not full preterist.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

Ken Gentry is not a hyper-preterist. He is a classic partial preterist. . . holding to the creeds and the WCF which he is _bound_ to do being he is/has served in both the PCA and the OPC.

Note: Also, even among hyper preterists there are those who are considered heretical...E.g., one hyper-pret may consider another hyper-pret a heretic because the other one holds to universalism, or something.
SO..something that someone believes may not be, or have anything to do with, hyper-preterism as an eschatological position in and of itself.

E.g., If a hyper preterist happens to believe that Pepsi is better then Coke...that DOES NOT mean that "Pepsi" is the preferred drink among hyer preterists.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 8, 2009)

tdowns007 said:


> If I remember, Mccarter's article, "A critique of full Pret..." is actually, critiquing Hyper Preterism.
> 
> I've been using Partial Preterism to define, Gary Demar, or any preterist who believes in the resurrection of the saints, and a Second Coming...but, sounds like, Full Preterists, can hold to that? With only Hyper being the heretical?



I've never heard of a distinction between hyper and full preterists... i.e. the terms are, as I've used them and heard them used, interchangeable.


----------



## Zeno333 (Jan 8, 2009)

tdowns007 said:


> A guy at my church is using Gentry to teach the college group, at my church, which, I was surprised to see, he would be considered a Full Preterist?



As stated by others in this thread, Gentry is NOT a Full Preterist

Chilton, however, was a Partial Preterist when he wrote is large commentary on the Book of Revelation, "The Days of Vengeance", and he later changed to a Full Preterist after he wrote that book.


----------



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

*To clarify:*



tcalbrecht said:


> tdowns007 said:
> 
> 
> > A guy at my church is using Gentry to teach the college group, at my church, which, I was surprised to see, he would be considered a Full Preterist?
> ...



I always considered, Gentry, a partial preterist, which, I'm assuming he is...but...the guy at my church, was using the term Preterist, without the partial, to refer to his teaching. I thought, the other thread also made a distinction between Full Preterist and Hyper Preterist. 

I may be wrong, but I thought, Preterists, were making a move, to take over the term Full Preterist, as a non-heretical position, where-as, they would agree, that Hyper Preterist, is heretical.

So...is there, and should there be, and is it recent, to make a distinction between "Full Preterist" and "Hyper Preterist".

And my understanding is, this distinction, would be primarily, the bodily resurrection of the saints, and the second coming of Christ literally?

Don't forget, put the  wherever you'd like.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

tdowns007 said:


> 1. This friend, is full antinomian, believing the Law is so obsolete, that, there is actually no sin in the world--baffling to me--is this the norm for hyper-preterists? Obviously, this is a ramification, of their believing this is the New Heavens and New Earth, correct?



Well, first off. Believing that the law is obsolete is not something that is unique to hyper-prets. This thought is the norm in many modern day denominations...(who are usually futurist, not preterist).

Now, the law that should be obsolete, in a consistent hyper-pret position, is the law of the "ministration of death".

_Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory_
2Corinthians 3

The "ministry of death" is carved in letters of stone. This is a clear reference to the decalogue, but, only in relation to the OC.

Note: I am NOT defending this position...I am simply stating some info.
I am a very big "T" Theonomist. So you all should no where I stand in regards to the Law.

Back to topic: This ministry of death is tied directly to the OC...and when the new covenant came, and was consumated, the ministry of death was put to death.
This is what is meant in hyper-preterism with the destruction of death (the spiritual covenantal aspect NOT the physical), and this is a reference:

Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
56 *The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law*. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ
1Corinthians 15

The hyper sees death, which is sin, being destroyed in the full destruction of the Old Covenant (which happened in 70ad).

Thomas
I don't believe the "new heavens and earth" thing is the motive for thier believing in NO Sin, as you said.
The new heaven and earth is merely a reference to the new covenant adminisration (which replace the the old covenant...which "heaven" was the temple, and "earth" was the land).





tdowns007 said:


> 2. When you say, that the entire Earth, is being resurrected, and, there will be no "stop" point, how, and when, would we receive the resurrected body?



Perhaps you are thinking about my reference in the historicist thread. I said that I don't believe that history has a defining stopping point..(i.e.., I am a progressive post-mill).
What I mean is that the resurrection is not a "last day" of history event...the resurrection is simply a result, or a "fruit" of the word of God (Christ) restoring creation (progressively)...and, filling all in all. (though the event may take place in one day, it is not a "last day" of history event, in my opinion) The restoration of creation does not simply end or stop history...rather, the creation (under Christ) will continue to bring fourth fruit to God...
As the famous hymn says "World without end, amen, amen"

Now, "when" you get your resurrected body..I don't know. Maybe in a million years from now, as the word of God continues to bring fourth fruit..maybe at that point his work/word will have accomplished this..but, I simply do not know.

Note: There is a view of "progressive resurrection" which is that, post parousia, the resurrection is "each in turn" (1cor 15).. that upon death, a man recieves his new ressurected heavenly body, that Jesus went to prepare a place for us, and in his father's house are many "dwelling places"...these "dwelling places" are our heavenly abodes that we recieve at death, when Christ comes to recieve us to himself.
Also, the judgment is progressive in this sense as well (each in turn after death)...the wicked die the death, the lake of fire, the saints recieve their heavenly body. 






tdowns007 said:


> 3. Do you have a focus point, you use with hyper preterists, to go to for the full bodily resurrection of the saints?



My main argument is an argument against GNOSTICISM...That the Hyper-prets, over spiritualism, is in fact Gnostic (like a lot of chritianity is unfortunately today)...
Thus they reject the bodily resurrection, because, in consistency with gnosticism, that which is of the earth, or flesh, is evil or unimportant to God...So they flat out deny real bodily resurrection.

But, my argument is that God is not a gnostic God and he is very much concerned with the body. MAN (adam) does not consist of a soul trapped inside of a body..no..man is a complete body soul unity. We are created that way..and, in my opinion, we will be recreated that way (at the resurrection)...If a "man" does not have a body, then he is not a man...a soul body unity is what defines a man.
just as Christ was 100% God, and 100% man, so is Man 100% body and 100% soul.

Hyper-preterism does not get this because of a, in my opinion, gnostic worldview.



tdowns007 said:


> 4. He also holds to a form of reincarnation--although he doesn't call it that. Once again, normal for Hyper Preterists?



I would say NO...This would be this guy's own invention, and I would not attribute such a view to hyper-preterism.


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2009)

tdowns007 said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > tdowns007 said:
> ...



Hyperpreterists muddy the waters on purpose. They don't like being labeled as 'Hymenians', or 'hyperpreterists' because that sounds so 'heretical'. Those that deny a future bodily resurrection for all are heretical regardless of how they label themselves.

I would add that many of them seem to agree that there will be a future bodily resurrection, but tweak the meaning of 'bodily' to mean a 'spiritual' body. (This they do through faulty exegesis of 1 Cor 15:44.) Thus they can claim to be orthodox because they agree with the use of the word 'bodily' but they deny the historic definition of 'bodily'.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 8, 2009)

moses said:


> now, "when" you get your resurrected body..i don't know. Maybe in a million years from now, as the word of god continues to bring fourth fruit..maybe at that point his work/word will have accomplishes this..but, i simply do not know.
> 
> Note: There is a view of "progressive resurrection" which is that, post parousia, the resurrection is "each in turn" (1cor 15).. That upon death, a man recieves his new ressurected heavenly body, that Jesus went to prepare a place for us, and in his father's house are many "dwelling places"...these "dwelling places" are our heavenly abodes that we recieve at death, when Christ comes to recieve us to himself.
> *also, the judgment is progressive in this sense as well (each in turn after death)..*.the wicked die the death, the lake of fire, the saints recieve their heavenly body.



And this statement is unconfessional.


Chapter 33 of WCF:

I. God has appointed a day, wherein He will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ,[1] to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.[2] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged,[3] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.[4]

II. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.[5]

III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:[6] so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.[7]


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2009)

MOSES said:


> But, my argument is that God is not a gnostic God and he is very much concerned with the body. MAN (adam) does not consist of a soul trapped inside of a body..no..man is a complete body soul unity. We are created that way..and, *in my opinion*, we will be recreated that way (at *the* resurrection)...If a "man" does not have a body, then he is not a man...a soul body unity is what defines a man.



You say that we shall be recreated as a complete body and soul unity at *the* resurrection. So you believe there is a definite moment in time when all are resurrected, right?

Also, you say that this is 'your opinion'. As opposed to the opinion of the hyperpreterist or the Reformed confessions?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 8, 2009)

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> > But, my argument is that God is not a gnostic God and he is very much concerned with the body. MAN (adam) does not consist of a soul trapped inside of a body..no..man is a complete body soul unity. We are created that way..and, *in my opinion*, we will be recreated that way (at *the* resurrection)...If a "man" does not have a body, then he is not a man...a soul body unity is what defines a man.
> ...



If I may?

I believe that the distinction between the partial and hyper positions in the preterist interpretation is precisely this: the partial believes that Revelation 20 has not been fulfilled. The full/hyper preterist believes that Revelation 20 has been fulfilled, and we are now in the glorious state.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

*Thanks!*

Thanks for the responses...

I've still not seen this clarified, I've seen some say it's so, but, I'm still seeming to remember, someone saying they were full, not hyper?

DOES IN FACT, FULL = HYPER?

-----Added 1/8/2009 at 07:47:54 EST-----



victorbravo said:


> moses said:
> 
> 
> > now, "when" you get your resurrected body..i don't know. Maybe in a million years from now, as the word of god continues to bring fourth fruit..maybe at that point his work/word will have accomplishes this..but, i simply do not know.
> ...



Hey, Victor, Moses is explaining a Hyper-Preterist view, NOT HIS VIEW HERE....from what I understand in reading his posts, he does hold to a bodily resurrection and second coming.???

Just an FYI


----------



## RoderickE (Jan 10, 2009)

*Primer on Hyperpreterism*

Hello,
I see there is quite an active discussion here over hyperpreterism. Having been a FORMER hyperpreterist & now using that inside knowledge, I have been attempting to educate people on the intricacies of that "movement". 

First, for those who do not know what hyperpreterism is let me summarize the 3 main positions held by hyperpreterists. (pret sounds like bet).

*3 MAIN BELIEFS OF HYPERPRETERISM*

1. Jesus came back once & for all in the year AD70
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in the year AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in the year AD70.

These 3 points are driven by an over arching premise which is that Christian interpretation & indeed basic Christian understanding has been terribly in error for over 2000 years. Some hyperpreterists even claim there has been a 2000 year conspiracy to cover up the 3 beliefs above.

Now, why is it called HYPER-preterism? The word "hyper" in the theological sense means to go beyond the original intent or scope -- so HYPER-preterism is a belief that goes beyond an original version that was simply called preterism. Traditional/Historic preteristic beliefs do see some significance in the AD70 events (See Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7,20) BUT classic preterism did NOT advocate the 3 beliefs mentioned above. Thus, hyperpreterism is considered HYPER just as much as HYPER-Calvinism goes beyond the original intent & scope of traditional/historic Calvinism.

Hyperpreterism is also Heterodox...a heresy. It is NOT a heresy just because we don't like it, nor is it a heresy because it is "new", nor is it a heresy because the majority oppose it. Hyperpreterism is a heresy because it is unlike anything ever taught in the history of Christianity...from the very founding to now. Hyperpreterism is as much outside of historic Christianity as is Mormonism & JWs. Hyperpreterists often call their system: Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Consistent Preterism, Fulfilled Eschatology, or a new name bandied about in attempt to make it sound more legitimate, Biblical Preterism.

WHERE DID HYPERPRETERISM COME FROM?

The present day versions of hyperpreterism all originated in the 1970s with a man named Max King. King was a "church of Christ" minister who wrote several hyperpreterist books in the 1970-1980s. Hyperpreterism before that was mainly manifested among Universalists (people who believed no one would ultimately be condemned -- "everyone is saved"). Perhaps the most infamous group of pre-1970 hyperpreterists was a group in upstate New York in the late 1800s. This group was called the "Oneida Community" (search wikipedia.org). This group formed a commune & practiced their hyperpreterism to the extent of no longer having individual marriages but instead everyone having sexual relations with everyone else -- they thought this would be a "logical" conclusion if the resurrection is already passed & people are no longer given in marriage. (Mt 22:30)

Hyperpreterism died out & as I said was revived again in the 1970s. Hyperpreterism is experiencing a resurgence & is beginning to show itself among the churches. Hyperpreterists typically don't (or can't) maintain their own congregations so instead, "lone ranger" hyperpreterists either try to influence existing congregations or they drop out of attending church & instead try to influence Christians.

Hyperpreterism is mainly an online phenomenon. Some of the hyperpreterists came through so-called "Reformed" teachers such as Gary DeMar who although he claims he is not a hyperpreterist himself, he refuses to call it a heresy & has spoken at hyperpreterist conferences & maintains a friendly presence on hyperpreterist websites.

HOW TO COMBAT HYPERPRETERISM

Hyperpreterism by design is an arrogant & egotistical system -- after all it claims 2000 years worth of Christian interpretation has been MAJORLY wrong, so trying to interact with a hyperpreterist one on one will be a frustrating & futlile endeavor. Hyperpreterism redefines theological terms & definitions so although a Christian may think they are having a fruitful, scriptural discussion with a hyperpreterist, you must recognize that hyperpreterism like Mormonism & JWs may use Christian sounding terms & even appeal to the Bible -- but just like those other cults -- hyperpreterism is anything but Christian.

To combat hyperpreterism you MUST keep them on the main premise -- that they are trying to tell you that God could not or would not maintain within His Church a basic & correct understanding of the endtimes. Don't let hyperpreterists leave this premise no matter how much they claim to want to talk about "scripture" or have an "exegetical" conversation. Premises matter & the hyperpreterist premise is faulty to the core.

HYPERPRETERIST TACTICS

Hyperpreterists will try several tactics to break down the defenses (armor) of a Christian. A couple things they will do are:

1. Claim they are only using "Sola Scriptura/Bible alone" methods
2. Claim Hyperpreterism always existed in "seed" form.
3. Claim there has never been a Church council on eschatology.
4. Claim you are unloving or mean to not accept them.
5. Attempt to get legitimate teachers/preachers to validate them.

The first point is perhaps the one that hooked me on hyperpreterism for a time (yes I am a former hyperpreterist). Hyperpreterism often claims it is merely reading/interpreting the Bible as it is written. Hyperpreterists will also pit their interpretation against 2000 years of Christian interpretation by claiming they don't follow the "Creeds" (this comes from its 'church of Christ' foundation). The word Creed, in Latin simply means "belief". So, unless hyperpreterists are trying to claim they don't believe anything, they too have a "creed" -- its just that the hyperpreterist "creed" goes against everything that was ever considered Christian. Another tactic hyperpreterists try to employ under point #1 is to compare themselves with the Reformation & the Reformers like Martin Luther. The problem is, hyperpreterism would have been rejected by the Reformers as well. Hyperpreterists are more like the "radical reformation" (look up on wikipedia.org) which wanted to chuck everything & start over. The Reformers & especially Martin Luther, rejected the radicals as heretics.

Lastly on this point, hyperpreterists will often try to claim that Luther was teaching something never before taught in the Church -- this is categorically untrue. Luther was merely re-espousing long advocated beliefs that are found more than just in "seed" form both in the Bible & in historic Christian interpretation. (see Augustinianism for example).

Point #2 in hyperpreterists tactics is one I've seen used by so-called "conservative hyperpreterists". They want to pretend there are traces of hyperpreterism all throughout Christian history. What they do is find a quote by some theologian that sounds like preterism or hyperpreterism & then tell you it is a "seed" of their belief even if the overall premise & position of the theologian is clearly in opposition to hyperpreterism. The hyperpreterists attempt to find "seeds" of hyperpreterism under every little theological rock is merely wishful thinking. No serious theologian in history has ever advocated what hyperpreterists believe...now that in itself doesn't make hyperpreterism wrong, but it does make their claim to find "seeds" a dishonesty.

Point #3 is an oft repeated tactic of hyperpreterist followers who have picked up this line from hyperpreterist teachers -- I say this because most hyperpreterist followers have scant knowledge of Christian history -- to the point of you will often see them spelling Arminianism as Armenians .

First, the use of this tactic seems to miss the point as to why councils were called. Church councils were not called to impose a new belief on the Church but rather councils were primarily called only when a new heresy rose up. So, the reason there has never been a need for a specific council addressing eschatology is because there has never been a heresy divergent enough from the traditional teaching on eschatology. The point is, even with variances among the existing eschatological models -- ALL of the eschatological models AGREE on EXACTLY the 3 beliefs that hyperpreterism denies. This is significant.

Point #4 is used when all else fails. Hyperpreterists will begin to claim anyone who opposes them must "hate" them & want them to "go to hell" -- even if their opponents never use these words. Hyperpreterists will play the victim & persecuted in attempt to gain sympathy. Don't buy it.

Point #5 is used more by the hyperpreterist "leaders". They will try to get well known, respected teachers/preachers to say hyperpreterism is not a heresy & then they will cite these people in their defense. I've seen hyperpreterists do with with people such as Gary DeMar & James Jordan. Hyperpreterists will also attempt to join legitimate groups such as ETS or a local seminary & use this as "proof" they are valid.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is, hyperpreterism is just as NON-Christian as is Mormonism & JWs. We should treat hyperpreterism & hyperpreterists the same way we treat Mormonism & JWs. That doesn't mean we have to "hate" them -- as Christians really shouldn't hate anyone -- but we most certainly should not go around acting like hyperpreterists are Christian brothers & sisters. And we should be suspect of everything they "teach" as it is all tinged with their hyperpreterism (hyperpreterism ISN'T just about eschatology -- it affects everything as all of our beliefs affect our other beliefs). Remember, Mormonism also claims to follow Jesus, even to the point of promoting itself as "Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints". Don't be fooled. Hyperpreterism is a heresy & anyone advocating it in principle or by name is a heretic. Pray for them to be released from this horrible error.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 10, 2009)

Interesting initial post Roderick. Welcome to the board.


----------



## KMK (Jan 10, 2009)

Thank you for this post!



RoderickE said:


> Now, why is it called HYPER-preterism? The word "hyper" in the theological sense means to go beyond the original intent or scope -- so HYPER-preterism is a belief that goes beyond an original version that was simply called preterism. Traditional/Historic preteristic beliefs do see some significance in the AD70 events (See Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7,20) BUT classic preterism did NOT advocate the 3 beliefs mentioned above. Thus, hyperpreterism is considered HYPER just as much as HYPER-Calvinism goes beyond the original intent & scope of traditional/historic Calvinism.
> 
> Hyperpreterism is also Heterodox...a heresy. It is NOT a heresy just because we don't like it, nor is it a heresy because it is "new", nor is it a heresy because the majority oppose it. Hyperpreterism is a heresy because it is unlike anything ever taught in the history of Christianity...from the very founding to now. Hyperpreterism is as much outside of historic Christianity as is Mormonism & JWs. Hyperpreterists often call their system: Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Consistent Preterism, Fulfilled Eschatology, or a new name bandied about in attempt to make it sound more legitimate, Biblical Preterism.



To call them anything else just lends undue credence to their position.

Is there a form of HP that agrees that there is a future bodily resurrection for each individual, but it is a 'spiritual' body? They use the word 'bodily' but torture its meaning.

Your point about DeMar is very important.... I know that Gentry has a couple of lectures available but as a whole preterist theologians, in my opinion, have not done enough to establish the landmarks of orthodoxy in their position. I hope that there will soon be a comprehensive refutation of HP by a prominant preterist theologian. 

What is your eshatology now?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 11, 2009)

Any G.B.A. argument (like the oft bandied about theonomy leads to FV) is on its face fallacious at best.


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2009)

Joshua said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > ... writers such as ... Gentry ... are ... 'gateway drugs' to HP.
> ...



Every HP I have ever had contact with started out by reading Gentry, DeMar, Chilton etc. Gentry does come out, as I said, against HP but I would like to see something more comprehensive. If it came from Gentry I think it might be taken seriously by the HPs because they have a great deal of respect for him. (Especially his early dating of Revelation)

I in no way am casting aspersions on Gentry. I apologize if my 'gateway drug' comment sounds like I am. I have great respect for Gentry and benefited greatly from his audio lectures against HP.

-----Added 1/11/2009 at 12:32:22 EST-----



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Any G.B.A. argument (like the oft bandied about theonomy leads to FV) is on its face fallacious at best.



Who is offering GBA arguments?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 11, 2009)

DeMar has stated that he does not call HP heretics because he feels that the minute you call someone a heretic they will shut their ears to any form of debate. He believes that simply pointing out various faults of their beliefs accomplishes more. He says he has success with this.


So this would be the reason why DeMar has not personally come out guns a blazin against HP.


----------



## RoderickE (Jan 11, 2009)

*How some Orthodox Preterists Breed Hyperpreterism*



KMK said:


> Is there a form of HP that agrees that there is a future bodily resurrection for each individual, but it is a 'spiritual' body? They use the word 'bodily' but torture its meaning.
> Your point about DeMar is very important. Preterist writers such as DeMar and Gentry and Chilton are, as Rich would say, 'gateway drugs' to HP. I know that Gentry has a couple of lectures available but as a whole preterist theologians, in my opinion, have not done enough to establish the landmarks of orthodoxy in their position. I hope that there will soon be a comprehensive refutation of HP by a prominant preterist theologian.
> What is your eshatology now?



Hello KMK. There is typically two forms of Hyperpreterists when it comes to the "body" of individuals. 

1. Immortal Body Now (IBN)
2. Immortal Body at Death (IBD)

The view held by most hyperpreterists is the IBN view, which comports with their idea that the resurrection of the believers happened in AD70. As inconsistent as it may seem, the IBN hyperpreterists believe that we are in "Heaven Now" & they don't really try to explain what happens to us after mortal life.

Whereas the IBD hyperpreterists (such as Ed Stevens for example) tend to be more conservative but less consistent. IBD would say that although the resurrection supposedly happened in AD70, believers today who physically die will get immortal bodies at their immediate death, however there will be no future resurrection. So, yes they will say it is a "spiritual body".

Now to the the title of this post. I don't know too many hyperpreterists that will credit Gentry directly for leading them to hyperpreterism since as someone else pointed out, Gentry clearly calls hyperpreterism a heresy especially as Gentry was part of the team that wrote _"When Shall These Things Be? -- A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism"_. However one of the major, major things that so-called Orthodox Preterists say that leads into hyperpreterism is that AD70 was "Jesus coming in judgment". Because then, a hyperpreterist has you -- he will then point out that Orthodox Preterism is just as much Creedal/Confessional heresy as is hyperpreterism since no Creed/Confession has Jesus coming back at ALL in AD70. Further, it would seem that such a claim would have Jesus coming yet a 3rd time if AD70 was the second.

Orthodox Preterists need to STOP claiming Jesus came back in judgment in AD70. The Bible says in the parable of the Landowner & the Wicked Vinedressers that it was NOT the Son/Heir but the Landowner/The Father who took vengeance on the wicked vinedressers. See *Mt 21:33-41*. So, if Orthodox Preterists keep saying it was Jesus that came, then yes they are leading people into hyperpreterism.

One more note, we Reformed guys need to start holding some of these teachers accountable. DeMar for instance will NOT call hyperpreterism a heresy & is in fact rather cozy with them, speaking favorably at hyperpreterist conferences & posting on hyperpreterist websites. Here is a snippet from a radio show where DeMar is asked directly by a hyperpreterist (Sam Frost) if _"full preterism"_ is a heresy -- DeMar says no, it is not heresy: http://www.preteristsite.com/mp3/demarwithfrost.mp3 

Notice the question takes 3 minutes to build up (called _"leading"_) because the hyperpreterist guy is trying to give DeMar his answer for him & pretends not to want to put DeMar on the spot -- really, he is trying to get DeMar to validate hyperpreterism by saying it is not heresy...& DeMar obliges. DeMar even claims hyperpreterists DON'T DENY the resurrection...well no, but they like all heresies redefine terms & make it a spiritual resurrection AND they place it at AD70. Does DeMar really think that is NOT heresy???

Personally, I think we need to stop buying any materials from DeMar UNTIL he makes a clear statement that hyperpreterism IS heresy.

Lastly, you asked about my own eschatology. Well, since I had been a hyperpreterist for a number of years it is taking me awhile to re-organize my thoughts on that but I'd say I am postmil. I certainly hold that the 3 major eschatological events (Jesus' return, the resurrection of the believers, & the judgment of the wicked & righteous) are yet future.

To everyone else who commented & greeted me. Thanks & I am glad to see that so many of you are taking a strong stand. The worse thing you can do for someone in a heresy is to coddle them & make them feel what they are advocating has ANY validity. Doing that will only prolong the heretical hold on them. Take this from me, someone who was duped by heresy for a time.

In Christ,


----------



## Zeno333 (Jan 11, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> Hello,
> I see there is quite an active discussion here over hyperpreterism. Having been a FORMER hyperpreterist & now using that inside knowledge, I have been attempting to educate people on the intricacies of that "movement".
> 
> First, for those who do not know what hyperpreterism is let me summarize the 3 main positions held by hyperpreterists. (pret sounds like bet).
> ...



What were the exact Bible verses that convinced you to not be Hyper-Preterist anymore??

I am not interested in anything that are in any of the historic creeds, I am wondering what Bile verses only convinced you. In other words, are there a set of Bible verses that you would use against the Hyper-Preterist and those Bible verses "alone"??
I am one of those that feels any and and part of a Creed could have errors, slim as those odds may be. So I am interested in Bible verses alone that kill the Hyper-Preterist theories.

Remember, R. C. Sproul and many other current reformed theologians do not believe in, and are not awaiting a world leader they call the "Anti-Christ". And the vast majority of Christians are, and if Sproul and others are right on that subject, then the vast majority of the Church is in error on it, and also many of the Creeds state or imply a future individual Anti-Christ. Again, if Sproul and others are right, then the Creeds are wrong on that subject of the future Anti-Christ world leader. So I do not think that we should argue the Hyper-Preterist points at all from the Creeds, I think only Scripture should be used...it must be able to be shown from Scripture or it is not for sure fact.. the RC Church treats Tradition as Scripture, we should not. We also should not treat creeds like scripture.
I am NOT saying I am a Hyper-preterist here, not at all...I just would love some Bible only ammo to use against the Hyper-Preterists.

-----Added 1/11/2009 at 02:35:49 EST-----

PS..i also am one that calls something a heresy ONLY if it goes against scripture...i think one point being made in a Creed can be wrong over the centuries, and I also believe that masses of Christians can be wrong, just like most Christians are looking for a future world leader called the Anti-Christ, where so many are not like Sproul etc. I would not call Sproul a heretic since he is not looking for a future world leader called the Anti-Christ.

I also know that the whole issue of Scripture verses Creeds is a debated issue out there..I am also fully aware that it was the "Creedal System" so to speak that caused the Canon of Scripture to be agreed upon in the first place....BUT....that Canon of Scripture that was agreed upon by the Council, and Creedal System, was NOT agreed upon for the purpose of having then and now, a Canon of Scripture AND the Creeds for "Authority". Furthermore, the Westminster Confession opens with defining what Scripture is because that Creed falls solely upon that Scripture for the Authority of faith and practice...the Westminster Confession is NOT an Authority, and it states within itself that it is not an Authority.


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> Now to the the title of this post. I don't know too many hyperpreterists that will credit Gentry directly for leading them to hyperpreterism since as someone else pointed out, Gentry clearly calls hyperpreterism a heresy especially as Gentry was part of the team that wrote _"When Shall These Things Be? -- A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism"_.



Thanks for this! I was not aware of it. I am thankful that Gentry has put this together. I will be getting it soon.

Welcome to PB, BTW!

-----Added 1/11/2009 at 09:49:25 EST-----



KMK said:


> RoderickE said:
> 
> 
> > Now to the the title of this post. I don't know too many hyperpreterists that will credit Gentry directly for leading them to hyperpreterism since as someone else pointed out, Gentry clearly calls hyperpreterism a heresy especially as Gentry was part of the team that wrote _"When Shall These Things Be? -- A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism"_.
> ...



I checked out the book on KennethGentry.com and one of the reviewers had this to say:



> I had strong hyper-preterist leanings before reading this book. I read it in irritation, hoping to refute it. I could not.



That's what I like to hear!


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 11, 2009)

Roderick,
Thank you for your posts. So very timely 

Welcome to the PB


----------



## tdowns (Jan 11, 2009)

*Great stuff...*

Welcome and thanks. Your short summaries are great.

I've def. clarified, to myself, some of my confusion. I've heard people claim the title Preterist; not a partial, not a Hyper. I had figured, Preterist, without the Partial tag, would be a Full...sort of like, I'm a Full Calvinist...not a Partial, not a Hyper. 

After reading, I see now, that Full and Hyper, are used as synonymous in regards to Preterism, although, some would say there is a distinction, historically.

Once again, thanks for the responses. I'm prayerfully preparing to sit with my friend over the issues, and hope to get Gentries book on the subject.


----------



## RoderickE (Jan 11, 2009)

*Answering some questions & greetings*

Hello to all who are greeting me. Thank you for the kind welcome.
Hello Zeno, thanks for the questions. I appreciate them. 



Zeno333 said:


> What were the exact Bible verses that convinced you to not be Hyper-Preterist anymore??



This is an interesting question especially in light of my initial posting which spoke about how a person must buy into the over-arching premise/paradigm of hyperpreterism before he can be duped by it. I'm not certain a simple proof-texting gets anyone out of any error. For instance, how many times have we all been in a back & forth with the freewiller & they line up their supposed proof-texts against our proof-texts? I'm not saying we don't use Scripture to refute error as obviously we do, but we must deal with what is actually driving someone's belief/disbelief. Doug Wilson who was a contributor to the book I mentioned (*[ame="http://www.amazon.com/When-Shall-These-Things-Hyper-Preterism/dp/0875525520"]When Shall These Things Be? -- A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism[/ame]*) had this very true thing to say on page 256:

_"If someone were to maintain that God did not know the location of a particular town in South Dakota, & we were to debate with this person, the resultant debate would not be over geography. In the same way, before we can understand our debates with hyper-preterists, we have to recognize that it is not fundamentally a debate about eschatology at all. The fundamental question is one of authority."​_
This is true when we debate freewillers, hyper-preterists or others that bring forth a divisive doctrine. The debate isn't over proof-texts, it is over the authority & sovereignty of God.

There are only so many possibilities with this issue with hyperpreterism:
1) Jesus returned in AD70 as it appears in some isolated texts but against the witness of 2000 years of Christianity.
2) Jesus didn’t return in AD70 as it appears in most texts & by witness of 2000 years of Christianity.​
If we believe option #1 we have to say the heck with historic Christianity — even with all the hyperpreterist attempts to find “seeds” of hyperpreterism in history, they just aren’t there. So then, we have an event taking place that not only Jesus didn’t/couldn’t clearly teach & make sure Christians understood, but also the Holy Spirit guided, inspired apostles would/could not have made clear enough to the Christians. We can’t just say, “Well, it’s not Jesus’ & the apostles fault that the Christians didn’t get it”. I mean, I was a training supervisor for 8 years with a team of 4 trainers that were responsible for training over 250 employees that came through 3 call-centers & you know what I would have told my trainers if their typical classes of 16 students would have ALL failed to learn what they were teaching? I would have blamed it on the trainers/teachers, not the students. Either way, hyperpreterism undermines Christianity. It causes you to lose faith in the Sovereignty of God & His ability to guide His Church. And don’t think to compare it to the Jews who missed their Messiah the first time, since those people were under an old covenant — we Christians are supposed to be under a BETTER COVENANT. The covenant Jesus came to establish & reveal. If it is as flawed as the former, then again, Christianity is undermined by hyperpreterist “logic”.

Option #2 is humbling because it takes our individualism, our desire to be personally right & it causes us to say, “Yea, I ‘think’ I know what this text means…but why does all of Christianity stand against me?” It causes us to NOT ignore 2000 years worth of Christian witness. It causes us to hold to Sola Scriptura within the confines of the notion that Jesus & the apostles ACTUALLY did successfully teach & guide the Church. It respects the authority & Sovereignty of God & humbles our puny minds.

So, I was personally convinced that Jesus didn’t return in AD70 because Jesus obviously didn’t clearly teach that to Christians, nor did the apostles clearly teach that to Christians…otherwise they would have believed it. To me, this option is most God-honoring because it humbles the interpreter to say, we believe what Jesus & the apostles taught because this is how ALL of Christianity has understood Jesus & the apostles. Anything less is something DIFFERENT than Christianity. I realized I could no longer rightfully call myself a Christian while I stood outside of everything that has been Christianity.



Zeno333 said:


> I am not interested in anything that are in any of the historic creeds, I am wondering what Bile verses only convinced you. In other words, are there a set of Bible verses that you would use against the Hyper-Preterist and those Bible verses "alone"??
> I am one of those that feels any and and part of a Creed could have errors, slim as those odds may be. So I am interested in Bible verses alone that kill the Hyper-Preterist theories.



Zeno, I don't think anyone has mentioned creeds in this discussion, HOWEVER as you may know, _"creed_" comes from _"credo"_ which literally means, "I believe". Everyone believes something, the question is, does that belief line up with Scripture AND 2000 years worth of Christianity? There are verses that can be used to combat hyperpreterism but they will fall on deaf ears as long as the person believes 2000 years of Christians have been duped.
For instance, I mentioned about how Orthodox Preterists, based on Mt 21:33-41 should NOT say Jesus came back in judgment in AD70. Another issue is seeing that the "coming in/on/with the clouds" that Jesus often spoke about was often (but not always) a colloquialism for glory or vindication (see an article I wrote about "The Glorious Cloud Coming of Christ"). 

Hyperpreterists also often like to talk about the so-called "time-texts". They point out that Jesus uses the words/phrases _"soon", "at hand", "about to be", "shortly", "within this generation"_ & then they will claim if Jesus didn't come back within the first-century, then He is a liar (see how much respect they have for our Lord?)

But if you look at Dan 7:13-14 in conjunction with Mt 26:64 shows that Jesus was SOON/AT HAND/ABOUT TO/SHORTLY/WITH THAT GENERATION be glorified & vindicated as the God He claimed to be. And if you look at those verses, you see that at least in those verses, Jesus' coming was NOT back to earth -- not even in judgment but rather He was coming before the Throne of God.

Hyperpreterism is like 2 Pet 3:14-17 where people, even sometimes sincere people twist Scripture to their own destruction...I know that I was while I was a hyperpreterist. Hyperpreterists & all such heresies are full of people operating from a Proverbs 26:12 mentality, where they are "wise in their own eyes".

Now, think of a single verse that "kills" freewill/Arminianism? I can cite all sorts including the predestination verses, the elect verses, the Romans 9 verses, the John 6:64-68 verses & on & on but until a freewiller is humbled, he will not listen. The way to combat hyperpreterism is to deal first with its over-arching premise. If a hyperpreterist tries to get off that, make him stick to it. He has no right to talk Scripture until he deals with God's Sovereignty/Authority.



Zeno333 said:


> Remember, R. C. Sproul and many other current reformed theologians do not believe in, and are not awaiting a world leader they call the "Anti-Christ". And the vast majority of Christians are, and if Sproul and others are right on that subject, then the vast majority of the Church is in error on it, and also many of the Creeds state or imply a future individual Anti-Christ. Again, if Sproul and others are right, then the Creeds are wrong on that subject of the future Anti-Christ world leader. So I do not think that we should argue the Hyper-Preterist points at all from the Creeds, I think only Scripture should be used...it must be able to be shown from Scripture or it is not for sure fact.. the RC Church treats Tradition as Scripture, we should not. We also should not treat creeds like scripture.
> I am NOT saying I am a Hyper-preterist here, not at all...I just would love some Bible only ammo to use against the Hyper-Preterists.



Well, this is a little strange since it almost sounds like a hyperpreterist argument. You see hyperpreterists will trick people by making comparisons between their hyperpreterist beliefs & the _"left behind"_ beliefs of the last 200 years. Well, when those are the only options, sure hyperpreterism looks good. But before the rise of dispensationalism in the 1800s, you didn't have every little wanna-be teacher out there calling every despot the next Anti-Christ. Keep in mind Zeno that your ammo against the hyperpreterist must include both Scripture & Reason & right now, a hyperpreterist will reason that God failed to maintain the most basic beliefs within His Church. I'm not going anywhere ever again with someone who wants me to doubt God's sovereignty. They are like the Jobian _"friends"_ that want Job to curse God & instead justify themselves. 



Zeno333 said:


> PS..i also am one that calls something a heresy ONLY if it goes against scripture...i think one point being made in a Creed can be wrong over the centuries, and I also believe that masses of Christians can be wrong, just like most Christians are looking for a future world leader called the Anti-Christ, where so many are not like Sproul etc. I would not call Sproul a heretic since he is not looking for a future world leader called the Anti-Christ.



Well, the Bible defines what heresy ACTUALLY is. It is NOT just something we don't like or understand. Romans 16:17-18 says:

_Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.​_
Heresy or DIVISION is when something is CONTRARY to the doctrine which you (all of Christianity) has learned. I guess the question is, how far from what Christianity has learned does something have to be before we consider it heresy??? I'd say if anything qualifies, hyperpreterism certainly does since whether you look at pre-Roman Catholic Christianity, Roman Catholic Christianity, Greek Orthodox Christianity, Syrian/Aramaic Christianity, Reformed/Protestant Christianity, Anabaptist/Zwinglian Christianity, or Modern Evangelical Christianity -- they have *ALL AGREE* on exactly the 3 things hyperpreterism denies. This is extremely significant.



Zeno333 said:


> I also know that the whole issue of Scripture verses Creeds is a debated issue out there..I am also fully aware that it was the "Creedal System" so to speak that caused the Canon of Scripture to be agreed upon in the first place....BUT....that Canon of Scripture that was agreed upon by the Council, and Creedal System, was NOT agreed upon for the purpose of having then and now, a Canon of Scripture AND the Creeds for "Authority". Furthermore, the Westminster Confession opens with defining what Scripture is because that Creed falls solely upon that Scripture for the Authority of faith and practice...the Westminster Confession is NOT an Authority, and it states within itself that it is not an Authority.



Again I appreciate this but when we talk about "creeds" perhaps the very first creed....is in the Bible & it is called....THE TABLE OF CONTENTS. When hyperpreterists or some other "enthusiast" (the name the Reformers gave to people who wanted to make up their own interpretations), wants to invoke the slogan _"Sola Scriptura"_ as if it is their mantle to invoke, we must ask them what is Scripture??? Why only 66 books & no more or no less? Now, as Protestants we reject the notion that the Canon wasn't established until the Roman Catholics said it was -- Christianity through the leading of the Holy Spirit had long determined the Canon before any council convened to declare it. But for the hyperpreterist, he cannot have it both ways. Either God is Sovereign & has guided His people in the most basic understanding...from the constitution of the Canon to the basic understanding of eschatology OR, we are left with the perpetually undermining propositions of people like the hyperpreterists.

Lastly, the Church...Christianity does indeed have "traditions". They are NOT merely traditions of men but they are the traditions of the hand-picked by Jesus, Holy Spirit guided, inspired apostles who are called the foundation of the Church & who passed on these "traditions" to the Body of saints.:

_Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle._ (2 Thes 2:15)​
Please don't be so quick to disdain our heritage.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jan 12, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> Orthodox Preterists need to STOP claiming Jesus came back in judgment in AD70. The Bible says in the parable of the Landowner & the Wicked Vinedressers that it was NOT the Son/Heir but the Landowner/The Father who took vengeance on the wicked vinedressers. See *Mt 21:33-41*.



Well, I’m not sure we can draw that requirement from this parable.

First of all, the parable says nothing about the Son being resurrected and seated at the right hand of the Father, ruling over the nations and bringing them all into subjection. The AD70 judgment seems perfectly in line with that reality.

Secondly, I’m not sure there is any passage in the rest of the Bible that speaks of the Father taking vengeance for the death of His Son on the cross. On the contrary, there are verses such as “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,” (John 5:22, cf. 2 Thess. 1:7-8) that seem to teach the contrary. 

In other words,, the details of the parable are not meant to trump the rest of the Bible. 



RoderickE said:


> So, if Orthodox Preterists keep saying it was Jesus that came, then yes they are leading people into hyperpreterism.


Doubtful, in my opinion.


----------



## KMK (Jan 21, 2009)

KMK said:


> RoderickE said:
> 
> 
> > Now to the the title of this post. I don't know too many hyperpreterists that will credit Gentry directly for leading them to hyperpreterism since as someone else pointed out, Gentry clearly calls hyperpreterism a heresy especially as Gentry was part of the team that wrote _"When Shall These Things Be? -- A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism"_.
> ...



I just received my copy yesterday! It looks great. (Although, is it slightly ironic that the chapter entitled: "Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority" is written by an FV proponent?)


----------



## Roldan (Jan 31, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Hyper Preterism or Full Preterism is definitely on the rise. And, there are a lot of various streams of implication in that camp. I'm spending quite a bit of time studying it myself. There doesn't seem to be a consistent systematic to it. Noe says one thing; Frost another, and so on. I am becoming convinced that is has become a cult.



I have debated Dr. Sam Frost personally and his disciples and have pointed out the plethora of implications that their pressuppostions lead to, especially Frost since he claims to be reformed in theology and a Calvinist. But I have been convinced for many years now that Full Preterism IS without a doubt a cult. I have discussed various points with him and/or them from the consequences of the fall of Adam to the New Heavens and the New Earth, they have basically REDEFINED Christianity to fit their system if one could even call it that. Frost personally gave me His work on the resurrection called "Essays on the Resurrection" and boy let me tell you its highlighted from cover to cover with the terrible exegesis that it presents. But anyways those are my


----------



## RoderickE (Feb 7, 2009)

*Hyperpreterism the cult*



Roldan said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Hyper Preterism or Full Preterism is definitely on the rise. And, there are a lot of various streams of implication in that camp. I'm spending quite a bit of time studying it myself. There doesn't seem to be a consistent systematic to it. Noe says one thing; Frost another, and so on. I am becoming convinced that is has become a cult.
> ...



Hello Roldan, Yes hyperpreterism is certainly a cult, but not in the way Dr. Walter Martin had understood. There is no centralized, charismatic leader, but rather a handful of "leaders" -- one being Sam Frost, others being Max King, Tim King, Don Preston, John Noe, & some others. 

Any discussions with these guys or reading their material for any extent will show that to accept hyperpreterism you must first accept that 2000 years of Christianity has been terribly, terribly in error -- to accept hyperpreterism you MUST first accept there has been either a 2000 year error or a 2000 year conspiracy. That is their "exegesis".

I'd like to get to know you better Roldan, feel free to email me via: Contact | The Kingdom Come

P.S. Sam Frost is NOT a "Dr." I think he is just a M.A.R.


----------



## KMK (Feb 7, 2009)

RoderickE said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...



I think he is C of C also, isn't he? They have no problem assuming they are more enlightened than the historic church in many areas.


----------



## RoderickE (Feb 8, 2009)

No, Frost isn't C of C. He has a pentecostal background, now claims he is Reformed (though he is more of a RINO - Reformed in Name Only). However, you are correct that MOST of the original & still most of the present "leaders" within hyperpreterism come from the C of C background -- Max King, Tim King, Terry Hall, William Bell, Don Preston, Ed Stevens, Virgil Vaduva, Jack Scott, Kurt Simmons & others -- all from the C of C.

And you hit on a significant point. Why is it so prevalent among the C of C? Well, as you may know, C of C comes from what is called the _"Restoration Movement"_ (see link). This is important to realize because the Restoration movement contains the key element of how a person can become a hyperpreterist...or fall into any heresy that has disdain for historic Christianity. The Restoration movement & the C of C denomination advocated that the true church & true gospel had failed & that they (C of C) are here to RESTORE it. This is the same mentality among hyperpreterists...that 2000 years of Christians were too dumb to understand the most basic elements of God's plan.

As a matter of fact, Sam Frost just today (Feb 8, 2009) repeated this key faulty premise to his fellow hyperpreterists. He said:



> _\"...how to deal with the issue the problem of \"history\" and Preterism (or, \"why the church missed it\"). They didn't miss it. They misunderstood it.\"_ (source)



Hyperpreterism relies on a conspiracy theory. They want us to believe that 2000 years of Christianity has been wrong about the end-times & now the hyperpreterists are here to fix everything. The arrogance is amazing.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy (Feb 8, 2009)

I have a good friend who is hyper-preterist and formerly of the Church of Christ. He is burnt from the hard-nosed legalism that prevails in the C of C, and I think that his bad theology partly stems from a backlash against that system. He absolutely HATES John Hagee and other dispensationals who say that Christ is coming back to establish a physical kingdom headquartered in Jerusalem for a thousand years. On that, I agree with him. His prooftext, the Scripture he loves to quote, is Luke 17:21: "nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." The vast majority of folks today think that Christ's kingdom is some physical entity in the future. He uses this verse to establish that Christ's kingdom is already present and that it is a spiritual kingdom. Once again, I agree.

But then he constantly goes on and on about how Christ returned once for all time in judgment in AD 70, denying the future return of Christ. He has it so engrained in his head that Christ came in judgment in AD 70 that he doesn't see the possiblity of a double fulfillment. I've debated with him about this subject, but to no avail. He is a wise old guy. He's spunky, humourous, and a good mentor, so it's sad when he gets off into this topic.

My whole point is that these are real people who hold to this heresy. We need to remember that when we confront them, and we need to pray hard for them.


----------



## RoderickE (Feb 9, 2009)

*Hyperpreterists are real people*

Hi there Calvinist Cowboy, I want to interact with your excellent observations. I'll post after your quotes.



Calvinist Cowboy said:


> I have a good friend who is hyper-preterist and formerly of the Church of Christ. He is burnt from the hard-nosed legalism that prevails in the C of C, and I think that his bad theology partly stems from a backlash against that system. He absolutely HATES John Hagee and other dispensationals who say that Christ is coming back to establish a physical kingdom headquartered in Jerusalem for a thousand years. On that, I agree with him. His prooftext, the Scripture he loves to quote, is Luke 17:21: "nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." The vast majority of folks today think that Christ's kingdom is some physical entity in the future. He uses this verse to establish that Christ's kingdom is already present and that it is a spiritual kingdom. Once again, I agree.



Ah-ha! yes another excellent point to bring out. MOST hyperpreterists are former dispensationalists..._"left-behinders"_. It is no coincidence that modern hyperpreterism sprung up in the 1970s with Max King, exactly the same period that _"Left-Behindism"_ sprung up with guys like Hal Lindsey & his _"Late Great Planet Earth"_ junk. Hyperpreterism is an OVER-reaction to left-behindism, and if all a person had as a reference point for Christianity was a choice between left-behindism or hyperpreterism, sure hyperpreterism would appear more "logical" & more "biblical". But both of these teachings are errors, heresies.

Historic Christianity has ALWAYS taught that the kingdom is within as Luke 17 says. Historic Christianity has ALWAYS taught that the kingdom is a PRESENT spiritual reality & is like a mustard seed constantly growing into a huge tree or like a rock ever becoming a mountain & filling the entire earth. Only in the last 30 or so years with the dominance of "left-behindism" have many professing Christians NOT understood this.



Calvinist Cowboy said:


> But then he constantly goes on and on about how Christ returned once for all time in judgment in AD 70, denying the future return of Christ. He has it so engrained in his head that Christ came in judgment in AD 70 that he doesn't see the possiblity of a double fulfillment. I've debated with him about this subject, but to no avail. He is a wise old guy. He's spunky, humourous, and a good mentor, so it's sad when he gets off into this topic.



Yes indeed & THIS is why it is called HYPER-preterism because HYPER means to go beyond (hyper) the original scope or intent. Just like we call someone a HYPER-Calvinist who says they are Calvinist but teaching there is no more need to preach the Gospel since God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. So too, have hyper-preterists gone BEYOND what it means to have the kingdom within & among men.



Calvinist Cowboy said:


> My whole point is that these are real people who hold to this heresy. We need to remember that when we confront them, and we need to pray hard for them.



This is a good point to remember. I WAS a hyper-preterist for 15 years. Though I'm not saying we should be rude or hateful toward hyper-preterists, I am trying to tell people, that if you make them feel like they are just as valid as a historic Christian, you will only prolong the hold hyperpreterism has on them. We must keep hammering the point that hyperpreterism MUST claim that 2000 years of Christianity has been a failure. This is the only way I was able to get out of hyperpreterism. More & more I began to realize I couldn't really call myself a Christian in the historic sense of the word. What I was believing & advocating was no more Christian than was Mormonism or JWs. We must get that point across as much as possible BEFORE we get into "proof-texting" with hyper-preterists. Yes, indeed pray fervently!

Remember too, when dealing with hyperpreterists -- are you dealing with a "follower" of hyperpreterism or some guy who goes around thinking he is a "leader/teacher" like Sam Frost. This makes a difference as Rom 16:17-18 shows. There are wolves & then there are duped sheep. No need for us to beat up duped sheep. Thanks again for your great comments.


----------



## turmeric (Feb 11, 2009)

On a practical note, here is a sermon preached Sunday by our assistant-pastor; stating the orthodox position vis-a-vis unbelief.


----------



## tdowns (Feb 11, 2009)

*Good stuff....*

Great reading...thanks.


----------



## CNJ (Feb 12, 2009)

tdowns:
Your friend is so curious.  This full antinomian friend who teaches Kenneth Gentry in a church college class needs to ponder Gentry's excellent God's Law in the Modern Word: The Continuing Relevance of Old Testament Law. Gentry is not antinomian! He might also watch the DVD "A Defense of God's Law" which I ordered from NiceneCouncil.com and maybe watch this DVD in that college class.


----------



## RoderickE (Feb 21, 2009)

*Candid conversation*

I had compiled 12 of the most common comments I hear from hyperpreterists. I answer those questions in the most general Christian way I could & then invited a hyperpreterist to also answer the questions. Below is that candid (unedited) conversation.

The following are questions I have often heard hyperpreterists raise & the Christian answers to those questions. These questions & answers will be numbered as Q# & A#. The first answer after each question represents the historic Christian answer to the question (the RED text). The second answer represents the “hyperpreterist” answer to the question (the BLUE text). Thanks to David Lee for providing the answers for the “hyperpreterists”. Please refer to the Q or A number when making comments.

Q1 Why do people call it Hyperpreterism since that is derogatory?

A1 Hyper simply means beyond the original or normal scope (see ref). It is a technical prefix used even in the sciences, such as hyperactive, hyperhydration, hyperinflation, hyperoxide & such. It is not derogatory but historically & etymologically accurate since there is such a thing as PRETERISM which came BEFORE the version now labeled hyperpreterism.

A1 Hyper means beyond the original or normal scope. Thus by definition it implies that whatever is being discussed is “abnormal”. It is considered derogatory because by using the word “hyper” as a prefix when referring to a group of people, who claim that their view is a biblical view; the person (who inserts “hyper”) is in the same breath saying “it is not a biblical view”, before the discussion has even begun. The use of such a prefix implies that there exists a form of PRETERISM that came before the version now being labeled “hyperpreterism”, thus insinuating that hyperpreterism was not taught by Jesus and His disciples. People who hold to what some call “Hyper Preterism” prefer to be called “Full Preterists”, or just Preterists, myself included. I will mainly use the term “Full Preterist” in my answers. This term still allows someone to explain that “Full Preterism” believes that “all” prophecy has been fulfilled, which they argue is not true, but is a polite and open minded way to still disagree but with respect. Since the title “Full Preterism” does not by definition imply correctness in any sense, there should be no problem with others using this term.

Q2 Why don’t most Christians accept hyperpreterists as fellow Christians with minor theological differences?

A2 Hyperpreterism is NOT a minor difference. For 2000 years, every expression of historic Christianity has AGREED on exactly the 3 things that hyperpreterism denies (1) Jesus will come back in our future (2) The resurrection of the believers is yet future & bodily (3) The judgment of the wicked & righteous is yet future. Because of this major, major disconnect from historic Christianity, hyperpreterism is NOT accepted as within the scope of Christianity even though other differences between Christians can be accepted as minor & “non-essential”, hyperpreterism is so intertwined with the Gospel that it CANNOT be accepted without a complete redefining of what has been considered to be Christianity for the last 2000 years.

A2 What people refer to as “Hyperpreterism” is NOT a minor difference when comparing it to the MANY different views that have been taught throughout the last 1900 years. Not one view that arose after the writing of the Bible has ever stated that Jesus fulfilled His promise to come again at the end of the Age (Matt 13:36-43) in the first centur when Jerusalem was destroyed, during the lifetime of the disciples (Matt 23:32-24:1-51), nor has it been taught that that Resurrection of the dead and the Judgment of the Wicked & the Righteous would and did occur at the end of the Age/Harvest (in the first century) as Jesus seems to have stated it would. (Matt 13:36-43)

Q3 Do most Christians think hyperpreterists are going to hell?

A3 No, most Christians realize that though a person can be considered outside the community of saints when it comes to their held belief, it is still up to God who is & isn’t ultimately “saved” & “damned” — however, hyperpreterists can & should be treated as outside of Christianity as groups such as Mormons & JWs since hyperpreterism is just as foreign as those groups. It is not in an effort to be mean, it is actually an effort to get hyperpreterists to see they are nothing like historic Christianity.

A3 This question is hard to answer. Many Christian teachers claim “Full Preterism” is a “damnable heresy” which would mean that they are hell bound. Although, it is assumed that if Hyperpreterism is incorrect, that the “Hyperpreterist” could repent. There are many Christian teachers that I know that consider me a brother in the faith, while having full knowledge that I am a Full Preterist. So again, I believe that, in all fairness, this question is difficult without poll involving Christians, worldwide. To be fair, I can only speak from experience that although it does not seem like at times I am welcome in some small groups, I have just as many Christians either very curious about the view that I hold to or they are completely indifferent to the idea.

Q4 Why does it seem like most Christians will not engage hyperpreterists in an “exegetical” manner (on proof-texts)?

A4 Hyperpreterism, like other contrary systems must first be addressed on the premise level. There has been some exegetical refutations of hyperpreterism but most Christians consider the premise of hyperpreterism to be so untenable that there is no need to go much further. For example, before a person discusses the need for “environmental laws” such as “carbon credits” & such, they should first discuss whether the premise of man-made “Global Warming” is even true. Thus, most Christians do not see a need to engage hyperpreterism in proof-texts since hyperpreterism’s premise of a 2000 year conspiracy or error in Christianity undermines not only the hyperpreterist position but would undermine Christianity in general. Interacting on “proof-text” is futile until the premise is hashed out since both sides will bring proof-texts in an attempt to cancel out the other. This is true not only about hyperpreterism but about any positional claim; be it Global Warming or Evolution.

A4 I think that this too is a very difficult question to answer. I would be guilty of stereo typing millions of people in relation to only a few encounters (by a few I mean hundreds yet pales in comparison to millions). I can only speak from personal experience and theory. I believe that the word “exegetical” is tossed around a lot, even by myself, to denote “extracting the truth from the text” rather than “reading into the text”. The problem is that we all “read” the Bible through the lens of a premise. A false premise can, in my opinion, make an “exegetical” interpretation or apology incorrect based on a false syllogism. I believe this works vice verse as well, believe it or not, although ones interpretation is “eisegetical” or reading into the text, if it is solely the result of applying another hermeneutical rule of “analogy of faith” the interpretation or “apology” might be far closer to the truth than that of his/her opponents. I could only add two things. One being the fact that “proof texts” are weak regardless of the topic at hand. If you find enough verses that seem to “as clear as day” you can pretty much teach anything and some sects do. I believe most topics can ONLY be discussed when looking at the Bible Panoramically, coming to our conclusions in a synergistic or cooperative manner. I would lastly say that if the Christian community that holds to Futurism, Historicism, or Idealism, wants to really engage with Full Preterists, I believe that the books need to stop with the abusive ad hominem, and start with formal; public debates, for all to witness. This has seriously been neglected from those who see Full Preterism as being such a danger.

Q5 Why does it seem that many times, the discussion about/against hyperpreterism appears to become personal?

A5 Hyperpreterism is by its very nature very “personal” in that it MUST claim 2000 years worth of COLLECTIVE Christian interpretation has been in error & that a handful of people have “personally” figured out something very, very different than historic Christianity. It takes quite a confident (or egotistical) personal belief to assume one individual is correct & 2000 years worth of Christianity is wrong. This “personal” effect is not always shown among the more nominal hyperpreterists, but the “leaders” & “teachers” exude this personal element more than others. This is perhaps the cause of the discussion often turning to the personality & character of the individuals advocating hyperpreterism. It is often seen, the belief in hyperpreterism & a person’s strong…um assertiveness go hand & hand & can hardly be distinguished. It is not that Christians necessarily want to discuss the personal element, but it is intertwined so tightly that it is nearly impossible not to discuss how it MUST be arrogant to think 2000 years of Christian interpretation has been wrong & hyperpreterists alone have been correct.

A5 I believe that all topics that are dear to people’s hearts are and will be taken personal, but more so with this topic. Although I think it must come across very arrogant for people to disagree with the way things have been for 1900+ years although this is nothing new. Whether it is a quest to leave the tradition of hierarchy behind as our forefathers did, in order to pursue religious freedom and establish a Republic, or being the first group to call “slave-trade” immoral, or maybe to be the first one to challenge hundreds of years of church history as Martin Luther did just a few hundred years ago…it is always a fight “to the death”, because if the majority is found to be wrong, it is a huge blow to the dignity and reputation of that majority. Especially if that majority is using “God’s authority” or His Spirit’s “guidance” as its defense. This in its self makes the larger group feels like they are fighting for God, though the same could be said for the minority as well. To lose; means that God was defeated or that they were simply wrong. This is a very difficult issue, and must be handled carefully by both sides involved to protect the dignity of both groups. This sense of care, respect and caution for the others reputation has also been neglected by all sides involved in this “eschatological civil war”

Q6 Why can’t we just talk about the Bible alone & leave all of this other stuff out of it?

A6 The Bible is to be understood not as some document that suddenly dropped from the sky or given to some guy in a cave to recite (like Islam claims) or found on golden plates (like Mormonism claims), but the Bible is a living testimony & account of God’s nature, character, & plan handed down via prophets & apostles (Ephesians 2:20, Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 4:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Bible MUST be discussed under the premise that it is NOT up to each individual to privately interpret. We MUST consider that Jesus is the Cornerstone & the handpicked apostles are the foundation of the Church & have given to that Church, its “traditions”. Disconnecting the Bible & Christianity from its method & means of transmission will ALWAYS lead to erroneous “movements”. Even Mormons & JWs read the Bible & “exegete” the text, but what they lack is a connection with the historic Christianity that has existed for 2000 years. So, although a “Bible alone” discussion sounds good, the Bible is NEVER alone. It was given to a people & how those people received it & expressed it over the course of 2000 years MUST be considered.

A6 It would be impossible to “leave all this other stuff out of it”, because it often agreed that 2/3rds of the Bible is eschatological. So in a way to disregard eschatology is to disregard 2/3rds of the Bible. To discuss the Bible, is to discuss Eschatology. What the church considers “tradition” is very important, however the title “tradition” does not, in and of its self, make it “correct tradition”. Although someone might say “We MUST consider that Jesus is the Cornerstone & the handpicked apostles are the foundation of the Church & have given to that Church, its “traditions”. This is true but finding out what these “traditions” are, still involves our un-inspired interpretation. We find this kind of remark made by the Catholic Church in the 1500’s when feuding with Luther. Using the apostles “inspired writings” as a defense for your (possibly wrong) “uninspired interpretation” of those writings is simply bad reasoning.

Q7 Isn’t eschatology a “non-essential” anyway?

A7 All beliefs can be “non-essential” until they are really examined & seen as how they impact ultimately, the salvation of the individual. For example, some people would hold that you MUST be baptized to be saved. Then the question is raised, was the thief on the cross baptized? But with hyperpreterism, it isn’t just a matter of saying that anti-Christ is Nero or Barak Obama, it is intrinsically associated with the Gospel. The Gospel being REPENT & BELIEVE FOR THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND. (Mark 1:15). If as hyperpreterism claims, the kingdom is already here, including all the other associated events then this would impact the need to repent & believe — indeed, a large faction of hyperpreterists consistently advocate forms of “universalism” wherein all are now “saved” or “saved to serve”. There is no more condemnation possible since sin & evil & the devil have been completely defeated. Again, hyperpreterism is NOT just a minor disagreement with historic Christianity — hyperpreterism is a complete redefinition including a redefinition of the Gospel — whether the hyperpreterists mean to redefine the Gospel or not. So, eschatology is only “non-essential” as long as it is under-developed, but once it is centralized it may & often does impact all other “ologies”.

A7 I for one do think of eschatology as a “non-essential” although I must agree with Roderick Edwards when he says “All beliefs can be “non-essential” until they are really examined & seen as how they impact ultimately, the salvation of the individual.” (For his full context, see above A7). I must say this is well put. I know some preterists who are Universalists, however I know dispensationalist who advocate Universalism as well. So yes, ideas do have consequences which can either become major or minor in the end. But let me say this, we can say that believing a certain way leads to a destructive ungodly world view and that is why you should not believe it but that, by its self, does not disprove the belief, nor might the accusation be entirely true either. For example, I could say that Futurism, when drawn out to its logical conclusion leads to anti Semitism. Why? Because if you take Mark 13:7 and Rev 3:9 to be yet future than we would have to expect that Jews will someday (at the end of the world) become our enemy and threaten our (believers) lives. Not only does Mark 13:7 say that “they will deliver us to the courts and that we will be flogged in the synagogues but in Rev 3:9 we are told that a group of people claiming to be Jews are really “a synagogue of Satan.” I know Christians that think of the current nation of Israel as relating to these verses and it cause hatred, fear and bigotry. This can be a consequence of believing in futurism and some have admitted to me that it was, however this does not prove futurism wrong and should not be used totry and do so. And for me to use this and try to prove it (futurism) wrong is simply saying “I don’t like the consequences of this idea”, not that “the idea is wrong in and of its self” In other words “the consequence of an idea is not what makes the idea wrong.”

Q8 Don’t people who won’t accept hyperpreterism merely cling to the “creeds” or the “traditions of men”?

A8 Not most of the time. Creed for example comes from the Latin word “credo” which literally means, “I believe”. Even hyperpreterists have a “creed” or a set of belief statements they make (for example the 3 things they deny in Answer #2). Historic Christians do NOT normally appeal to the creeds over Scripture but rather look at creeds, confessions & general historic Christian belief in light of Scripture & then ask themselves, “If I come to a very different conclusion, why?” It is not merely an appeal to the majority but it is a respect for the sovereignty of God, for the working of the Holy Spirit throughout history, for the ability of Jesus & the handpicked apostles to have successfully transmitted & assured correct understanding to the Church & for that same Church to maintain the most basic & correct understanding of those doctrines. Historic Christians attempt to honor the Christians that have gone before them, all the way back to the original apostles. The “traditions” that most Christians are attempting to follow are those by the men Jesus handpicked to pass on those “traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hyperpreterism on the other hand is so foreign to historic Christianity, that if tomorrow hyperpreterism became the dominant belief within Christianity & ANY Christian from the past came & saw what was being taught & believed, those Christians would not think it was Christianity.

A8 In some cases they might be and I know some who admit to it. Although in other cases they are not and simply belief the Scriptures teach otherwise. Although I have to agree that for one to agree the with creeds, confessions and general historic Christian belief in light of Scripture is typically a safe ground to walk on but not a flawless way of avoiding error. Someone might say “It is not merely an appeal to the majority but it is a respect for the sovereignty of God, for the working of the Holy Spirit throughout history, for the ability of Jesus & the handpicked apostles to have successfully transmitted & assured correct understanding to the Church & for that same Church to maintain the most basic & correct understanding of those doctrines.” This is simply not true. We see in the Bible itself that although Peter and Paul would constantly teach and re-teach what Jesus had taught them to the church, only to have to re-teach it again to the churches that they had just written to or visited. For examples, see: 1st Cor 15 11-12, Gal 1 :6-7, 3:1-7 (over something as simple as salvation by faith), 1st Thes 5:1-11 and 2nd Thes 1:2:1-5 (where at first Paul say’s that they know full well about the Day of the Lord and yet in the second letter he has to correct and remind them about “the Day of the Lord” and even say’s in 2nd Thes 2:5..“Do you not remember that while I was with you I was telling you these things?”….Proving that the church makes errors and can make them soon after being taught the truth. Not to mention the list of errors that the churches in the Revelation of Jesus Christ made and needed to correct. So it is obvious that without inspired men and Scripture to correct these (at the time) “current day problems” the church would of taught falsehood right off the start and at times did. The question for us today is: who do we have that is trust worthy and inspired by God? The answer to that question makes our journey along one that will take the cooperation of all of us.

Q9 Aren’t “hyperpreterists” merely emulating the Reformers of the 15th & 16th century — such as Martin Luther?

A9 No. The Reformers were NOT fighting against the Church but rather against Papalism AND against the “enthusiasts” or “radicals”. On one hand the Reformers were opposing the Papalistic corruptions (Catholicism wasn’t ALWAYS corrupt) & on the other hand, the Reformers were opposing the “radicals” who wanted to discard everything that came before & redefine Christianity. Hyperpreterism is more akin to the radicals that the Reformers opposed than to the Reformers themselves. Interestingly enough, even the radicals claimed to be using the “Bible alone” to make their case, but like all cultic movements & like hyperpreterism, they were completely disconnected from historic Christianity. ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_reformation"]see link[/ame])

A9 I think in some ways Preterists could be compared to the Reformers by some and not by others. But then again most groups that are fighting, what they think to be a just cause in Christendom are appt to see themselves as the “new reformers”. Surly, it depends on your perspective of how the event took place as well as who was correct. A Catholic does not see the “reformers” as being on the right side and yet a protestant does. Most scholars would admit that at the time Papalism was the Church or at least acted as the leaders of the church, and would have continued to be, if not for the Reformers. So when defining the Church I think a lot is based on perspective. Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestants, and many more, all hold that “they” are the original or restored church, and yet all have made drastic historically mistakes. Surly the original question is in a way relative, based on who is reading this right now.

Q10 Why does it seem that some hyperpreterists are singled out for opposition more than others?

A10 Because there are “leaders” of errors & “followers” of errors & erroneous “leaders”. On one hand, the “leaders” are like wolves & the “followers” like duped sheep. If Christians truly love the people they see as fellow sheep, even duped sheep then they will reach out to them differently than those they perceive as “wolves”. These principles are found in verses like (Romans 16:18, 2 Corinthians 11:5, 2 Corinthians 12:11, James 3:1) Those who take up the role as “leaders” or “teachers” are to be held to more responsibility than those merely following, though if the “leaders/teachers” of error can be turned from error, praise God — it is rare.

A10 This is to be found in any conflict or disagreement. Leaders or the “most popular” are attacked first and in many ways this can be wise. It is the same for any group. Full Preterists are more appt to single out the leaders of other “opposing” eschatological views because the leaders do just that…they lead. In other words, “change the mind of a leader and in most cases you change the mind of those who sit under him/her.”

Q11 Can’t we just have a “civil discussion” without all the personal stuff & name calling?

A11 This is partly what this OPEN FORUM is for — so many times, productive discussions cannot take place because of membership or moderation restrictions. However, to think that a discussion of hyperpreterism or any BELIEF system will not ultimately turn to the personal is naive. We are what we believe or as the Bible says, “so as a man thinks in his heart is he”. (Proverbs 23:7) Theology affects character & character affects theology. Calling people random names like “boob” or “idiot” are not helpful or accurate, but some descriptors can & MUST be employed — such as hyper since it is an accurate term.

A11 I am optimistic that a civil discussion can and should be our goal at all times. I think that name calling can be expected from the less mature but should never be thought of as being acceptable or mature at any time. Unless you are Jesus or an inspired (by the Spirit) writer, I think we, “as far as it depends on us, should be at peace with all men.” Not to mention there is a fallacy involved in using the recorded actions of an apostle to justify ours, as some do, using Paul or Peter behavior to defend their behavior. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Paul’s behavior was always wise or good. Matter of fact we have a record of Peter’s behavior being ungodly and hypocritical (Gal 2:11-13). Which is another example of Peter, an Apostle of Jesus “….not being straight forward about the truth of the Gospel…..” (Gal 2:14) which shows us that even the apostles can goof at times as leaders and cause other to follow their bad example(Gal 2:13) and false impression. It is obvious that we are to be patient, kind, avoid jealousy and arrogance, not act unbecomingly, not seek our own, avoid being provoked, not take into account a wrong suffered…..and so on. (Cor 13:4-7 authors paraphrase) So this is a good general rule of thumb that should dictate our conversations.

Q12 Why can’t people mind their own business & let people believe what they want to believe?

A12 There are a few issues with this idea; (1) ideas & beliefs are hardly EVER held in private but will eventually be publicized & even openly or passively encouraged for other people to believe AND these ideas & beliefs have consequences (recall 911 & the World Trade Center?). (2) As Christians, we are supposed to be loving our neighbors & especially our brothers & sisters (people who call themselves Christians even if their beliefs are not quite Christian). AND to love them means we MUST interact with what they believe EVEN if they tell us to mind our own business (see link).

A12 I must agree with Roderick when he says “ideas & beliefs are hardly EVER held in private but will eventually be publicized & even openly or passively encouraged for other people to believe AND these ideas & beliefs have consequences……” So in conclusion I will state again that this subject MUST be discussed and truth must be sought after and defended. WE just need to remind ourselves that we have all been sure that we were once right; when at that moment we were wrong or later changed our mind. There are some who were just as convicted that Full Preterism was true as they are now that it is not, could that change again?….Yes. And vice verse. I have changed my mind too many times in my Christian walk to be arrogant and say that it might not happen again. So, I encourage all to participate in this discussion as long as it remains civil and loving. Once the love is gone, we have all lost the debate and have at that moment disappointed the One we seek to please………”Jesus”.


----------



## CNJ (Feb 21, 2009)

Here is a link to what Partial Preterist Dr. Kenneth Gentry says about Hyper-Preterism.

http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/index.html?mainframe=/eschaton/gentry_preterism.html


----------



## RoderickE (Mar 20, 2009)

Covenant Radio (CR) was founded by an historic, Reformed Christian AND a hyperpreterist who would never publicly admit it on the Internet Radio show.

After a year or so of the hyperpreterist co-host pushing hyperpreterism via the show, the historic Christian had enough & the hyperpreterist co-host left the show. The remaining host posted a written statement about hyperpreterism & removed all hyperpreterist material & links from the Covenant Radio website. These actions caused the hyperpreterists to write hateful emails to the host, even calling him a "coward" & claiming as hyperpreterists often do, that he was "rejecting Sola Scriptura".

Well, the host has now released an AUDIO statement so as to make it completely clear where CR stands.

*Covenant Radio's Statement on Hyperpreterism* (7.5 minutes)


----------



## Parsifal23 (Mar 27, 2009)

I favor Orthodox Preterism I just don't understand how people can be so gung ho for a theological novelty but then again look at Dsipensationalism.


----------



## tdowns (Mar 27, 2009)

CNJ said:


> tdowns:
> Your friend is so curious.  This full antinomian friend who teaches Kenneth Gentry in a church college class needs to ponder Gentry's excellent God's Law in the Modern Word: The Continuing Relevance of Old Testament Law. Gentry is not antinomian! He might also watch the DVD "A Defense of God's Law" which I ordered from NiceneCouncil.com and maybe watch this DVD in that college class.



Just to clarify, the friend with curious beliefs, and he has many, is not the same friend who is now teaching from a Gentry book at my church. I think it's great, that the guy at my church is using Gentry.

Thanks for the references.


----------



## Turtle (Apr 4, 2009)

tdowns said:


> I have a friend, who is a Hyper-Preterist...



Preterism is what results when a presupposition of the timing of the Lord’s return overshadows exegetical study of the visible signs of His return. We are to discern the Lord’s prophecy by the 1) sequence of 2) visible signs. “_When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign when all these things be fulfilled?” (Matt 24:3, Luke 21:7, Mark 13:4)._ Preterists hold more tightly to their timing regarding the Lord’s return than to discerning the signs. In my opinion, they have settled erroneously on the fulfillment of one of the signs and that error is extrapolated across other signs. For them, an early return becomes more important than a literal, complete fulfillment of the visible sign. Once settled on a false fulfillment of a sign the rest of the system built on that foundation becomes affected. (Which of course can happen to any view.)

Preterists are nothing new. They existed in the days of Paul and caused Christ’s disciples to be confused, and shaken, and troubled in mind. Paul didn’t mince words. He went straight for the kill and provided the stake to drive through the heart of the error. Paul reminds the believers not to be troubled, as if the day of Christ had already come. _“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God… whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming” (2 Thess 2:1-9)._

If the son of perdition has not yet come, then Christ has not yet come. If anyone points to the literal arrival of the son of perdition they must demonstrate from this text (and a few more) that their proposed son of perdition is in fact the one described in the scripture.

Paul of course was not the first to make this point. Jesus himself implored the reader to understand. _“you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. So when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not” (let the reader understand)…then let those who are in Judea flee… for in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. ” (Mark 13:13-19)._ 

Now here is where some may object and say, “But this is speaking of the great tribulation in 70 AD.” To which I respond, maybe so based on some ideas of timing, but for now lets observe the outward appearance of the signs that accompany the ‘abomination of desolations’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet. What does Daniel have to say about the _‘abomination of desolations’_? And, to test the congruence of Jesus’ and Paul’s argument, is the abomination of desolation the one who stands in the temple calling himself God, and is he destroyed by the Lord?

What is recorded in Daniel? He is the ruler _“who exalts himself, and magnifies himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods” (Dnl 11:36)_. He is the _“prince that shall come”_ and _“on the wing of abominations shall make desolate until the consummation” (Dnl 9:27). “He shall magnify himself in his heart… He shall stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand” (8:25). “He shall destroy the mighty, and the holy people” (8:24)._ He shall be the _“little horn” (7:8), “that speaks great words” (7:11), that has “a mouth that speaks very great things” (7:20). “He will make war with the saints and prevail against them” (7:21)._ He will become the ruler of the _“fourth beast” (7:8)_ which is the _“fourth kingdom upon the earth...diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth” (7:23)._ A kingdom _dreadful, terrible, exceedingly strong_, with _iron teeth that devours and brakes in pieces and then stamps the residue with its feet (7:7)._ This same man will cause _“a time of trouble, such as never was”(12:1)._ But there is a hope that remains, _“at that time (the time of trouble) [Daniel’s people] shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life” (12:1-2). “those that are His at His coming” (1 Corr 15)._ 

The little horn, the son of perdition, the ruler of the fourth kingdom that ruled the whole world, who made war with the Saints, prevailing against them, stamping the residue with his feet, did so _“until the Ancient of days came” (7:22) “whose garment was white as snow, and His hair like pure wool, his throne like fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire. (7:9). A fiery stream issued and came forth from the Ancient of days. (7:10)._ The thrones of the fourth kingdom, dread and terrible, _“were cast down by the Ancient of days and He did sit”(7:9)._ _One like the Son of man came on the clouds of heaven” (7:13), "With all the Saints" (1 Thess 3:13, Zch 14:5, Jude 1:14) “in His glory…and all his holy angels with him, and sat upon the throne of His glory” (Matt 25:31) Judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. (Dnl 7:22)._ 

I will admit that we hopped around the visions of Daniel quite a bit. We briefly touched on verses that mention the kingdom and the great tribulation, but the purpose was only to have a sufficient picture of the son of perdition. Much more could be said. Judge for yourself if this is an accurate review of the _abomination of desolations spoken of by Daniel the prophet_ and of _the son of perdition,.. that wicked one whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming._ 

If it is an accurate view of the son of perdition, then we can place it next to any proposed fulfillment, and _be not troubled that Christ has already come,_ 

Or, if this is all wrong, please correct or point to an accurate standard to test the arrival of the son of perdition.


----------



## KMK (Apr 4, 2009)

Turtle said:


> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> > I have a friend, who is a Hyper-Preterist...
> ...



What is your definition of preterism?


----------



## RoderickE (Jul 3, 2009)

*Logical Conclusions of Hyperpreterism*

If you take the composite of hyperpreterist teaching you come up with a scenario like this:



> * 1.* God DOESN’T create the cosmological (physical) universe, but merely creates a “covenantal” world — the planet earth probably came into existence as science says (*Hyperpreterists, Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn*)
> 
> 
> * 2.* Adam is NOT the first created human being, but merely the first human in which God entered “covenant”. Other humans existed long before Adam (*Hyperpreterists, Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn*)
> ...



Add all this to hyperpreterism’s “perspective” that Jesus came back once & for all in AD70, that the resurrection of the believers happened in AD70, & that the judgment happened in AD70 then really there is only ONE OPTION for hyperpreterists (if they are "consistent"):

*



God finished His plan in AD70. Whatever is going on now is outside God’s purview. God ran the plan to AD70 to collect the “Elect” & anyone who was left after that are no better than those supposed first “non-covenantal” humans. The planet earth is now full of non-covenantal, more or less “animals” that will live & die & simply rot. The plan of God doesn’t include them. It can’t. Hyperpreterism trying to stretch it beyond AD70 is unworkable & contradictory of their own “perspective”.

Click to expand...

*


----------

