Questions about Preterism

[tdowns]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[tdowns]

Thanks...

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To clarify:

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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-----

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]

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]

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]

Interesting initial post Roderick. Welcome to the board.

 

[KMK]

Thank you for this post!

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]

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

 

[KMK]

... writers such as ... Gentry ... are ... 'gateway drugs' to HP.

I thought Gentry comes out quite clear on his stance against Hyper Preterism?

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-----

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]

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]

How some Orthodox Preterists Breed Hyperpreterism

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]

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.

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]

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-----

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!

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]

Roderick,
Thank you for your posts. So very timely

Welcome to the PB

 

[tdowns]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.