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

[Peairtach]

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

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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

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

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

 

[RoderickE]

Hyperpreterist Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

 

[RoderickE]

Hyperpret's reply to PB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DonP]

Wow they sound like a solid cult.

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

Wow that it easier than a diploma mill.

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott1]

So, to clarify:

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

 

[LawrenceU]

So, to clarify:

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

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

 

[KMK]

So, to clarify:

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

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

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

 

[RoderickE]

I kid you not....

So, to clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[re4med]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Peairtach]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott1]

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

 

[RoderickE]

Be careful ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KMK]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RoderickE]

Hyperprets Thrashed

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


Download in MSWord Format
Download in Adobe PDF Format