Questions about Preterism

[tcalbrecht]

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.

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

Doubtful, in my opinion.

 

[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-----

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!

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]

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]

Hyperpreterism the cult

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

Hyperpreterists are real people

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

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[tdowns]

Good stuff....

Great reading...thanks.

 

[CNJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

What is your definition of preterism?

 

[RoderickE]

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)


3. The Flood account is only about the destruction of localized civilization. Other places were unaffected by the Flood. Human’s besides the ones on the Ark survived, thus doing great injustice to the salvation “inside the Ark”/”in Christ” parallel. Leaving room to consider there may be salvation outside of Christ. Granted, this is not specifically a hyperpreterist belief but it is being touted as a key element. (Hyperpreterists, Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn)

4. The need or call to be “born again” was only to Israel whom supposedly needed to be reborn out of the Old Covenant into the New. Hence the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus about being born again was NOT for individuals but only for the Jews. No one is “reborn” today — it was only a first-century thing. (Hyperpreterists, Max King, Virgil Vaduva)

5. God, Jesus, the apostles, & the Holy Spirit were unable to effectively relate the supposed hyperpreterist teaching to the first Christians & subsequent Christianity until about 1971 when Max King began to advocate hyperpreterism in full. This should be obvious in the FACT that no Christian has ever advocated anything like hyperpreterism, not even the cut & paste quotes you often see hyperpreterists lift from ancient theologians. Why not? Didn’t anyone understand that supposedly hyperpreterism was true until 1971??? (over-arching premise of ALL hyperpreterists whether they admit to it or not)

6. Supposedly all “first-rank” Christians, who supposedly knew & understood the hyperpreterist version of events were “Raptured” before AD70, leaving behind only the so-called “second-rank” Christians who obviously DIDN’T understand & pass on the hyperpreterist view — thus answering the 2000 years of Christianity that has NOT taught hyperpreterism. This view does great violence to justification, in that it somehow makes people be “almost saved” but not apparently enough to have been warranted to be part of the “first-rank”. (J.S. Russell, Ernest Hampden-Cook, but recently by hyperpreterists Ed Stevens, Walt Hibbard & others)

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”.