Thread: Hyperpreterism and the PCA

I am wondering if any of you know of any judicial cases on the topic of Hyper-preterism within the ranks of the PCA.

Not to my knowledge. I've yet to compile a comprehensive list of all the GA level judicial cases, but don't remember ever seeing anything that dealt with that topic.

Do keep in mind that a judicial case would not establish constitutional status. A judicial ruling might be looked at as "pious advice", but would not have the force of a statement in the BCO, the WCF or the Bible itself.

Wayne,

When you do the good, helpful work of such a compilation, please let us know!

Originally Posted by Wayne

Not to my knowledge. I've yet to compile a comprehensive list of all the GA level judicial cases, but don't remember ever seeing anything that dealt with that topic.

Do keep in mind that a judicial case would not establish constitutional status. A judicial ruling might be looked at as "pious advice", but would not have the force of a statement in the BCO, the WCF or the Bible itself.

Understood. I do wonder, given the apparent rise of this heretical position, why the PCA would not offer a position paper on this position. I understand that it has, in effect, offered such a thing as the WCF clearly discusses the timing of the Lord's return. It does seem, however, that wisdom might be warranted here to help guide the various Presbyteries in dealing with this matter, (that is, what do you do when a member in good standing holds to these heretical positions and is advancing them passively and actively? -- that sort of stuff).

Originally Posted by re4med

Originally Posted by Wayne

Not to my knowledge. I've yet to compile a comprehensive list of all the GA level judicial cases, but don't remember ever seeing anything that dealt with that topic.

Do keep in mind that a judicial case would not establish constitutional status. A judicial ruling might be looked at as "pious advice", but would not have the force of a statement in the BCO, the WCF or the Bible itself.

Understood. I do wonder, given the apparent rise of this heretical position, why the PCA would not offer a position paper on this position. I understand that it has, in effect, offered such a thing as the WCF clearly discusses the timing of the Lord's return. It does seem, however, that wisdom might be warranted here to help guide the various Presbyteries in dealing with this matter, (that is, what do you do when a member in good standing holds to these heretical positions and is advancing them passively and actively? -- that sort of stuff).

Not to speak for Wayne, but a couple things might be helpful in understanding and put this in context.

Study committees are most suited for new and complex situations where there is a genuine seeking of discernment.

Although a few had hardened errant opinion offshoots from "federal vision" theology, most people were genuinely overwhelmed with the complexity of understanding it in a practical way so it could be "spotted" if it popped up in a church or presbytery. That's why the 11 or so specific statements in the paper were so helpful, so understandable to ruling and teaching elders and congregation members who needed a quick way to discern it.

Could be wrong, but "hyperpreterism" does not seem to be nearly so complex- as you mention it teaches clearly things like the Lord will not return again that are obviously contrary to the confession. So, a study paper might not be so necessary for discernment. (I'm not saying it's not serious error, only that it doesn't seem to present the level of complexities that "federal vision does. Also, could be wrong, but I'm not aware of it having the level of popular promotion that federal vision was getting through things like Auburn Avenue conferences, etc.)

Also, understand most discipline of errant theology, violation of vows, etc. is not done "on the record" through the appeal process in the PCA. It's done through ordination examinations, and disciplines at the local (session) level.

It's hard to imagine someone appealing on the basis of the belief our Lord is not returning... can't imagine that getting sympathy in any presbytery I'm aware of (or at our Lord's soon return, either).

Originally Posted by Scott1

Originally Posted by re4med

Originally Posted by Wayne

Not to my knowledge. I've yet to compile a comprehensive list of all the GA level judicial cases, but don't remember ever seeing anything that dealt with that topic.

Do keep in mind that a judicial case would not establish constitutional status. A judicial ruling might be looked at as "pious advice", but would not have the force of a statement in the BCO, the WCF or the Bible itself.

Understood. I do wonder, given the apparent rise of this heretical position, why the PCA would not offer a position paper on this position. I understand that it has, in effect, offered such a thing as the WCF clearly discusses the timing of the Lord's return. It does seem, however, that wisdom might be warranted here to help guide the various Presbyteries in dealing with this matter, (that is, what do you do when a member in good standing holds to these heretical positions and is advancing them passively and actively? -- that sort of stuff).

Not to speak for Wayne, but a couple things might be helpful in understanding and put this in context.

Study committees are most suited for new and complex situations where there is a genuine seeking of discernment.

Although a few had hardened errant opinion offshoots from "federal vision" theology, most people were genuinely overwhelmed with the complexity of understanding it in a practical way so it could be "spotted" if it popped up in a church or presbytery. That's why the 11 or so specific statements in the paper were so helpful, so understandable to ruling and teaching elders and congregation members who needed a quick way to discern it.

Could be wrong, but "hyperpreterism" does not seem to be nearly so complex- as you mention it teaches clearly things like the Lord will not return again that are obviously contrary to the confession. So, a study paper might not be so necessary for discernment. (I'm not saying it's not serious error, only that it doesn't seem to present the level of complexities that "federal vision does. Also, could be wrong, but I'm not aware of it having the level of popular promotion that federal vision was getting through things like Auburn Avenue conferences, etc.)

Also, understand most discipline of errant theology, violation of vows, etc. is not done "on the record" through the appeal process in the PCA. It's done through ordination examinations, and disciplines at the local (session) level.

It's hard to imagine someone appealing on the basis of the belief our Lord is not returning... can't imagine that getting sympathy in any presbytery I'm aware of (or at our Lord's soon return, either).

Agreed. It seems highly unlikely there would be a hyperpreterist officer in any confessional church. It would be interesting to count how many exceptions they would require.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Scott1

Originally Posted by re4med

Understood. I do wonder, given the apparent rise of this heretical position, why the PCA would not offer a position paper on this position. I understand that it has, in effect, offered such a thing as the WCF clearly discusses the timing of the Lord's return. It does seem, however, that wisdom might be warranted here to help guide the various Presbyteries in dealing with this matter, (that is, what do you do when a member in good standing holds to these heretical positions and is advancing them passively and actively? -- that sort of stuff).

It's hard to imagine someone appealing on the basis of the belief our Lord is not returning... can't imagine that getting sympathy in any presbytery I'm aware of (or at our Lord's soon return, either).

Agreed. It seems highly unlikely there would be a hyperpreterist officer in any confessional church. It would be interesting to count how many exceptions they would require.

Ken -

Bill's not asking about officers, though, but people in the pew who hold to and promote heresy.

Bill's not asking about officers, though, but people in the pew who hold to and promote heresy.

Yes, I am not speaking about officers. I am speaking about members in good standing.

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

Originally Posted by KMK

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

No, they aren't - but that's not the only issue.

The views of members come up before their elders all the time - much of the time it's of no consequence, but what Bill is asking about is VERY different. This is hyper-preterism he's asking about, a denial of the future return of Christ, among other things, not some petty doctrinal difference, but one which contradicts not just the confession but the ecumenical creeds of the church. If public knowledge of their being outside the faith in this manner comes to the elders' ears, the elders (imo) can't just sit idly by.

Would a hyperpreterist be welcome to be treated as a member in good standing in your church? How about someone who denies that Christ is God, or that Christ was truly Man? These errors are of the same magnitude - gross heresy. I can't believe there is anyone here who would welcome such a person as a member in good standing and allow them to continue as a member in good standing.

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

The PCA has a tiered membership system. A baptist can be a full member in good standing, but can't be an officer for example. Same with someone holding to the FV, etc...if the person were to push something contrary to the BCO etc... ideally the session would deal with it, although in practice it depends on the session and presbytery. What you could do if there's someone in your church pushing something you feel to be dangerous, go to them, and if they won't hear you, take someone else, and if they won't hear you write a letter to the session. If they won't do anything, or judge the problem not as serious as you think it is, then appeal the session's ruling to the presbytery.

Originally Posted by KMK

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

No but it's possible that if a Session ruled against a member in a judicial proceeding that the member could appeal to the Presbytery, then to the General Assembly. Wouldn't happen a lot; have never heard of it in the OPC...

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by KMK

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

No, they aren't - but that's not the only issue.

The views of members come up before their elders all the time - much of the time it's of no consequence, but what Bill is asking about is VERY different. This is hyper-preterism he's asking about, a denial of the future return of Christ, among other things, not some petty doctrinal difference, but one which contradicts not just the confession but the ecumenical creeds of the church. If public knowledge of their being outside the faith in this manner comes to the elders' ears, the elders (imo) can't just sit idly by.

Would a hyperpreterist be welcome to be treated as a member in good standing in your church? How about someone who denies that Christ is God, or that Christ was truly Man? These errors are of the same magnitude - gross heresy. I can't believe there is anyone here who would welcome such a person as a member in good standing and allow them to continue as a member in good standing.

If confessional subscription is not required for membership, then how are the views of the members even known by the elders?

If confessional subscription is not required for membership, then how are the views of the members even known by the elders?

Membership interviews. And confessional subscription is required, just not as strictly for non officers. The Bowen case has been brought up here dozens of times, and it explains the PCA's system. Wayne can send it to you by email if you ask him nicely ;-)

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by KMK

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

No, they aren't - but that's not the only issue.

The views of members come up before their elders all the time - much of the time it's of no consequence, but what Bill is asking about is VERY different. This is hyper-preterism he's asking about, a denial of the future return of Christ, among other things, not some petty doctrinal difference, but one which contradicts not just the confession but the ecumenical creeds of the church. If public knowledge of their being outside the faith in this manner comes to the elders' ears, the elders (imo) can't just sit idly by.

Would a hyperpreterist be welcome to be treated as a member in good standing in your church? How about someone who denies that Christ is God, or that Christ was truly Man? These errors are of the same magnitude - gross heresy. I can't believe there is anyone here who would welcome such a person as a member in good standing and allow them to continue as a member in good standing.

If confessional subscription is not required for membership, then how are the views of the members even known by the elders?

Ken, with all due respect, don't you know basic views of your members, at least the broad strokes? I assume you must have some inkling of where they stand on major issues.

There are innumerable ways these things become known.

1) Simple conversations in the hallway
2) Sunday school interaction
3) Bible study interaction
4) Family visitation (not widely practiced, but in some circles it is still done)
5) Membership interviews

If a church is functioning properly, the elders ought to have a pretty good idea of where their sheep are theologically. Conversations between elders and members shouldn't be limited to football scores and band concert comments, but should have some substance. If the elders aren't aware of heretical doctrines held by and promoted by their members, or if they are aware and dont' care, there are major problems.

The problem is not usually with heretics or serious errorists content to remain quiet, right?

Originally Posted by TimV

Not being a Presby I don't understand why the views of members would come up before a judicial committee. Are members required to agree with the confession in all points?

The PCA has a tiered membership system. A baptist can be a full member in good standing, but can't be an officer for example. Same with someone holding to the FV, etc...if the person were to push something contrary to the BCO etc... ideally the session would deal with it, although in practice it depends on the session and presbytery. What you could do if there's someone in your church pushing something you feel to be dangerous, go to them, and if they won't hear you, take someone else, and if they won't hear you write a letter to the session. If they won't do anything, or judge the problem not as serious as you think it is, then appeal the session's ruling to the presbytery.

This outlines the biblical process perfectly!

(It's very "presbyterian" to go through steps, protecting confidences, respecting the authority and good name of authority God has placed over us, giving chance for God to intervene).

I might add one of the vows a member takes in the PCA is to study the doctrine of the church peaceably. They don't have to understand it all, far less agree with every part of it, but officers do (there can be granted peer reviewed minor "exceptions.")

Members have some responsibility with their vows and officers have some to make sure contrary views are not promoted, as they undermine the peace and purity of the church.

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

The problem is not usually with heretics or serious errorists content to remain quiet, right?

Sure, that's true... well one kind of problem would not be present if they were absolutely silent.

But suppose it came to the elders' attention through whatever private means that they had someone in their church who held to a gross heresy. Maybe they keep it relatively quiet, but they are unable even to profess the Apostles' Creed in good faith.

Would that be something you would say the elders should just "let go" and allow them to remain in good standing?

Of course not; but hyperpreterists tend to be rather vocal.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

The problem is not usually with heretics or serious errorists content to remain quiet, right?

Sure, that's true... well one kind of problem would not be present if they were absolutely silent.

But suppose it came to the elders' attention through whatever private means that they had someone in their church who held to a gross heresy. Maybe they keep it relatively quiet, but they are unable even to profess the Apostles' Creed in good faith.

Would that be something you would say the elders should just "let go" and allow them to remain in good standing?

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church? Does every historically-recognized heresy need to be re-affirmed by special documents in order to be accepted as such?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church?

Good point, but the creeds are not infallible (I know this is the standard line from the HPs), though they are vital and important.

I think the point I'm driving to is shouldn't we have a council or at least one's denomination call it a heresy before individuals go around calling people heretics? Heresy is a pretty darn strong word to use and shouldn't be used lightly. Way too many people use the term without knowing a bit (examining the exegesis) about the other side.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church? Does every historically-recognized heresy need to be re-affirmed by special documents in order to be accepted as such?

Right Todd...

I think the issue is simply this: IF the elders of the church are aware of the heretical position of one of its members (in good standing) and if they actually confirmed them to be as such...what should be done? Should the elders simply ignore it? Should the members be barred from the Lord's Table (it is sin, after all, to hold to heresy, is it not?). Should the elders work to restore the heretical member in the meantime? These are all legitimate questions and are not, in any way, related to what an OFFICER of the church must hold to (though it would apply to them at a greater level).

As Todd stated -- hyper-preterism denies a fundamental of the historic Christian faith. A hyper-preterist may be many things but he is not Christian (historically speaking). Where does that leave us as it pertains to the Supper?

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church?

Good point, but the creeds are not infallible (I know this is the standard line from the HPs), though they are vital and important.

I think the point I'm driving to is shouldn't we have a council or at least one's denomination call it a heresy before individuals go around calling people heretics? Heresy is a pretty darn strong word to use and shouldn't be used lightly. Way too many people use the term without knowing a bit (examining the exegesis) about the other side.

Do you seriously think that a denial of the future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT heresy on the face of it? Why is a council needed to declare heretical something that contradicts the universally accepted ecumenical creeds of the church?

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church? Does every historically-recognized heresy need to be re-affirmed by special documents in order to be accepted as such?

Actually, I do think that such a denouncement would serve the church well. Yes, it is an heretical position. But, that does not prevent people from being drawn into it. The position is a combination of a spider's web and Pandora's box. Many are unaware when they begin 'studying' this 'more accurate' interpretation that they are treading on dangerous ground. HP is growing and it would serve the body well to paint the dragon red. Bright red.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Southern Twang

Has the PCA or any other denomination officially denounced hyperpreterism as heresy?

Do you seriously think that it needs to be so denounced when it directly contradicts the ecumenical creeds of the entire Christian church? Does every historically-recognized heresy need to be re-affirmed by special documents in order to be accepted as such?

Actually, I do think that such a denouncement would serve the church well. Yes, it is an heretical position. But, that does not prevent people from being drawn into it. The position is a combination of a spider's web and Pandora's box. Many are unaware when they begin 'studying' this 'more accurate' interpretation that they are treading on dangerous ground. HP is growing and it would serve the body well to paint the dragon red. Bright red.

Well, I agree with this but I am not sure a council is necessary for this to happen. This is why I personally believe that "membership examinations" are way too loose. If one cannot state firmly that they believe in and subscribe to the Apostles Creed (with maybe some latitude over the "descended into hell" clause) then should they be allowed membership?

Seems to me that all is necessary is that they "said a prayer and accepted Jesus...". Maybe I am wrong.

Are there many or any of them in the PCA as elders ? I know Sproul wrote his book about how many prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 as opposed to the future, but he believes in a future bodily return and I figured preterists in general held to a future bodily return. Who are the hypers?

Originally Posted by lynnie

Are there many or any of them in the PCA as elders ? I know Sproul wrote his book about how many prophecies were fulfilled in AD 70 as opposed to the future, but he believes in a future bodily return and I figured preterists in general held to a future bodily return. Who are the hypers?

Well, I cannot speak about elders (and if they are then they lied about their subscribing to the WCF). I am really discussing the proper dealing with members in good standing.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

No, they aren't - but that's not the only issue.

The views of members come up before their elders all the time - much of the time it's of no consequence, but what Bill is asking about is VERY different. This is hyper-preterism he's asking about, a denial of the future return of Christ, among other things, not some petty doctrinal difference, but one which contradicts not just the confession but the ecumenical creeds of the church. If public knowledge of their being outside the faith in this manner comes to the elders' ears, the elders (imo) can't just sit idly by.

Would a hyperpreterist be welcome to be treated as a member in good standing in your church? How about someone who denies that Christ is God, or that Christ was truly Man? These errors are of the same magnitude - gross heresy. I can't believe there is anyone here who would welcome such a person as a member in good standing and allow them to continue as a member in good standing.

If confessional subscription is not required for membership, then how are the views of the members even known by the elders?

Ken, with all due respect, don't you know basic views of your members, at least the broad strokes? I assume you must have some inkling of where they stand on major issues.

There are innumerable ways these things become known.

1) Simple conversations in the hallway
2) Sunday school interaction
3) Bible study interaction
4) Family visitation (not widely practiced, but in some circles it is still done)
5) Membership interviews

If a church is functioning properly, the elders ought to have a pretty good idea of where their sheep are theologically. Conversations between elders and members shouldn't be limited to football scores and band concert comments, but should have some substance. If the elders aren't aware of heretical doctrines held by and promoted by their members, or if they are aware and dont' care, there are major problems.

This is true but how many times does this actually happen. As Chris says, HPs are vocal. They want to 'teach' their doctrine. They are not swift to hear.

If it is necessary that no heretical views be held by members then why not ask them to subscribe to some kind of confession. I am confused as to why you would not require some kind of confessional subscription for membership, but then turn around and discipline a member for holding heretical views.

There are some reformed churches that require vows to full confessional subscription before one can join. I realize that is not the topic of this thread here, you are concerned about this might work out in a PCA/OPC system or in presbyterianism historically.

It would seem to me a member can believe many things wrongly, be ignorant of many doctrines, etc. Imagine a new believer- is he going to understand fully the "five points" doctrine of grace. Would we deny membership if he is eager to study them out or is still struggling with the limited atonement?

Now if a member (under vows) seeks to influence others with something that amounts to heresy or even serious doctrinal error, then it could be become a matter of church discipline. Generally, that has to be "open and scandalous" and God has to have it to become known (especially to church officers).

If it amounts to all that, then there are steps. In the PCA:

1) informal admonishment
2) formal admonishment
3) suspension from Lord's Supper
4) excommunication

My understanding is, biblically, we go through steps to allow God to clarify, vindicate, and make His will better known. Far and away most matters remain private. Often, even suspension from the Lord's Supper is only know to a few.

Often, church discipline continues and escalates only because of sustained impenitence, not for the underlying sin. That goes whether it is for morals or serious doctrinal error.

One other thing to keep in mind, as I understand it, in the end, excommunication is always for impenitence- not the sin itself. That too goes whether it is a morals issue or one of serious doctrinal error.

Originally Posted by re4med

I am wondering if any of you know of any judicial cases on the topic of Hyper-preterism within the ranks of the PCA.

In 1997 our presbytery (Heartland) formed a study committee to deal with the issue of hyper-preterism. I was newly ordained and assigned to some of the research, however TE Phil Kayser (now with a different Reformed denomination) was the chief framer of our study paper. The committee was formed due to a TE voicing his move toward hyper-preterism. He left our presbytery/denomination before we were able to clearly identify his position and produce our final paper. Since that time I can't find the exact paper, but Phil Kayser essentially put it in to a booklet he wrote that can be found here:

http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/pr...erism.pdf?id=6

You will see he allows for a free download.

Originally Posted by Reepicheep

Originally Posted by re4med

I am wondering if any of you know of any judicial cases on the topic of Hyper-preterism within the ranks of the PCA.

In 1997 our presbytery (Heartland) formed a study committee to deal with the issue of hyper-preterism. I was newly ordained and assigned to some of the research, however TE Phil Kayser (now with a different Reformed denomination) was the chief framer of our study paper. The committee was formed due to a TE voicing his move toward hyper-preterism. He left our presbytery/denomination before we were able to clearly identify his position and produce our final paper. Since that time I can't find the exact paper, but Phil Kayser essentially put it in to a booklet he wrote that can be found here:

http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/pr...erism.pdf?id=6

You will see he allows for a free download.

Thanks for this. This paper demonstrtes how far out of bounds HPs are. It is not simply that they deny the future coming. Their particular hermeneutic causes them to contradict much of the confession.