hyperpreterism and heresy

[bigheavyq]

as richard pratt says, "theology is a web of multiple reciprocities", meaning if you fool with one strand, you're gonna pull others.

I was on a preterist group recently and I was amazed how many of those who hold to hyper-preterism also hold to other heretical views such as universalism, neo orthodoxy, bad christology, arminianism, and antinomianism.

If one doesn't have the parameters of the creeds and confessions, you will tend to fall into some sort of heresy.
Let us all remember that.

Let's put hyper-preterism in its place

 

[ReformedWretch]

I believe all of us here stand against hyper preterism.

 

[bigheavyq]

I would hope so, but you never know who may be leaning that way.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Correct, but what bothers me is that ever since I accepted Partial Preterism I have been warned by many to not get into "hyper preterism". Every where I've posted my views, spoken of them, or discussed them in any way I have been warned of the hersey of hyper preterism.

I understand the concern, but as a Calvinist, I have never been warned to avoid Hyper-Calvinism. It's as if most assume the average Calvinist knows that hyper-Calvinism is hersey, but the preterist needs many warnings.

Hyper Preterism holds no appeal to me in any way.

Please don't take offense Jonathan. I am not directing this at your post. Just stating my feelings in regard to the over all view most seem to have or preterism.

 

[Charismatic Calvinist]

Originally posted by houseparent
I understand the concern, but as a Calvinist, I have never been warned to avoid Hyper-Calvinism. It's as if most assume the average Calvinist knows that hyper-Calvinism is hersey, but the preterist needs many warnings.

No doubt! What is the deal with that anyway? I'm hearing you on this one, Adam.

 

[ReformedWretch]

No idea why that happens. Maybe Paul or someone more versed in Preterism can answer.

 

[SmokingFlax]

I think it's because most people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to differentiating between levels of preterism and probably view ALL preterism as heresy but are too timid to say so (to your face).

 

[ANT]

I think people (in general) do not know enough about the differences involved with the partial/full preterist view. Most people I have talked to have never even heard this view at all, and the ones that have, well ... they have only heard of the heresy aspect of the full preterism. Then the next time they hear someone saying that Nero was the beast, or that prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of the temple in AD70, they automatically link it with th heresy.

My experience has been this .... people who really cared for me .... have warned me about the heresy of hyper-preterism, telling me to be careful, when they found out that I held to a preterist (partial) view. You could see it in their eyes, they did not know the difference between full/partial and thought that I was grabbing on to some heretical teachings (out of ignorance, because alot, if not all that said this to me had not taken the time to study anything but the dispensational view. And we know what kind of response we get when you differ from their dispensational system of interpretation.) But they were not willing to try to tell me to my face that they believed I was grossly wrong. Instead, they phrased it towards me "You better be careful of hyper-preterism". I guess sometimes you can tell when people are very leary of what you hold to, and then start issueing warnings to you. What they are really saying (sometimes) is you better get away from those teachings, you are so off!

I don't know. Did that make any sense?

 

[ANT]

Originally posted by SmokingFlax
I think it's because most people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to differentiating between levels of preterism and probably view ALL preterism as heresy but are too timid to say so (to your face).

You got your post out while I was still typing mine.

Or else I would have just done this .....

 

[SmokingFlax]

But doesn't that kind of evasiveness (about calling out heresy) really bother you? It does for me.

I would hope that I would care enough to point out someone's error (if I REALLY believed it to be) without shrinking back into some kind of cowardly posture with weak and quibbling words.

 

[ANT]

Originally posted by SmokingFlax
But doesn't that kind of evasiveness (about calling out heresy) really bother you? It does for me.

I would hope that I would care enough to point out someone's error (if I REALLY believed it to be) without shrinking back into some kind of cowardly posture with weak and quibbling words.

Most defenitely. I would not let a person I cared about get away from me until I explained the dangers of the beliefs they are holding (if errant or heretical.) I think why some people are non-confrontational is because they really do not know enough to correct the other person. That, and they just don't want to point a finger in judgment without being able to properly help them.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Excellent points guys!

 

[SmokingFlax]

Good point(s).

I still regret the time that I didn't say anything to a guy I met who actually played drums at Kenneth Copeland's church. I knew Copeland was off on his teaching but I didn't know enough at the time to articulate it. I despise the whole TBN/prosperity thing and there are PLENTY of folks down here that are into it.

 

[VERITAS]

Well, all that said I can tell you from my perspective that fool-preterism is alluring because it seeks to be consistent. For instance, it is quite easy to see the language of "a new heaven and new earth where righteousness dwells" as referring to the Gospel age and not necessarily the eternal state.

The major error with it is the NATURE of the resurrection - which I'm not sure that most Christians have really studied in-depth. That's where people need to be careful and what ultimately convinced me that it was heresy. I have no problem with the "me and my bible" mentality - I embrace it. And that is part of the reason why so many people are easily led into hymenaeanism - because it seeks to be faithful to the Text and not to man-made creeds or confessions. I would reject all the creeds and confessions in the history of the church if I thought that the Bible taught something else. And many people that are coming out of dispensationalism (especially if they are not from a Reformed perspective) feel like the church has been the responsible party for either duping them or not equipping them to have recognized these truths in the past. Didn't you say as much in another thread Andrew about "Israel"?

 

[bigheavyq]

I am considered a heretic among most of my family because I embrace something other than pre-trib rapture dispensationalism. I'm also a heretic because I'm a calvinist. They think Dave Hunt Tim LaHaye are the best christian writers (all the left behind books) and they don't miss hagee and van impe on tbn.

 

[ReformedWretch]

And many people that are coming out of dispensationalism (especially if they are not from a Reformed perspective) feel like the church has been the responsible party for either duping them or not equipping them to have recognized these truths in the past.

That's pretty much how I feel!

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by houseparent
Correct, but what bothers me is that ever since I accepted Partial Preterism I have been warned by many to not get into "hyper preterism". Every where I've posted my views, spoken of them, or discussed them in any way I have been warned of the hersey of hyper preterism.

I understand the concern, but as a Calvinist, I have never been warned to avoid Hyper-Calvinism. It's as if most assume the average Calvinist knows that hyper-Calvinism is hersey, but the preterist needs many warnings.

I think a big part of the warning is because many people have fallen into the error. Where was this movement at 15 years ago? Where is it now? It has grown exponentially in the past decade compared to the previous 2,000 years of the church. If the overwhelming majority of Calvinists were falling into hyper-Calvinism, then I think you would hear more warnings.

It is kind of like Christians being questioned for opposing homosexuality. Why are Christians often so vocal against homosexuality and not as much as say fornication or adultry. Well, for starters, the cultural drift into sodomy and the fact that they are much more vocal than other forms of sexual immorality. Hopefully Christians oppose ALL sin, including the sin they find in the hypocrisy of their hearts, but the social setting in part determines what we address.

Now, how often have you been pestered by a hyper-Calvinist? How many hyper-Calvinist web sites are you aware of, especially if you just type in the word calvinism in a search engine? Most hyper's are consistent and don't do anything.

Next, the hyper-preterist has the element of surprise. I remembered when I was almost taken in by this heresy, because they seemed to provide answers and consistency (as Cheri pointed out). I read Chilton's "Paradise Restored" twice in one weekend, and began telling everyone that Mt. 24 has already been fulfilled. Although Chilton opposed this error at the writing of this book, I don't believe I was equipped to determine what was left. My eschatology at the time was Mt. 24 driven, it defined NT eschatology. The next thing I know, I was fitting all verses into this chapter, especially 1 Thes. 4, which in turn meant 1 Co. 15, which then meant the millennium. As Cheri pointed out, the nature of the resurrection and restorational eschatology saved me from apostasy at this point.

As I rattled off my objections to them, what about x, what about y, what about z? They seemed to provide consistent answers, namely ad 70, ad 70, ad 70.

Anyway, a lot of people have fallen into error and all hell has truly broken loose in their camp. Every heresy under the sun is accepted in their site.

openairboy

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Paul manata

I read Chilton's "Paradise Restored" twice in one weekend, and began telling everyone that Mt. 24 has already been fulfilled. Although Chilton opposed this error at the writing of this book, I don't believe I was equipped to determine what was left. My eschatology at the time was Mt. 24 driven, it defined NT eschatology.

Keith, you know that DeMar takes *all* of Matt 24 to be fulfilled, right? But he still claims to believe in a future rez and second comming. I personally hold to the transition text as argued by Kik and Bahnsen et al

Yes, I have read his "Passing of Heaven and Earth", and that is the sort of thing that left me confused at the time. Here is a guy that I thought was in my corner, but he seemed to be pointing to every verse being fulfilled in ad 70 and there weren't many providing substantive responses. I'm not sure about the 24:36 being transitional. There are definitely descent arguments for it, but not sure I buy it. I immediately went to the library and read Kik when I flirted with the hyper-pret beast to try and get my bearings on Mt. 24, but wasn't convinced overall.

An aquaintence recently told me that Demar, who at points seemed to be gradually ending up in hyper-pret, fully affirmed the orthodox position. I'm curious if he will ever produce a substantive response considering his influence in preterist circles.

Another thing that kept me from hyper-pret is going to one of their conferences in Youngstown, OH. I will simply say, They were some creepy folk. I realize this may be ad hom, but they seemed demonic or something. I remember sitting down for lunch and talking with some people then thinking, I need to get out of here. I unfortunately purchased Max King's book (The Cross and the Parousia) and Don Preston's treatment of 2 Peter. I read Preston, but never bothered with King.

openairboy

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by Paul manata
...DeMar takes *all* of Matt 24 to be fulfilled... I personally hold to the transition text as argued by Kik and Bahnsen et al

Ok, but on what basis, Paul? DeMar is no fool when it comes to hermeneutics. I mean, it's not as if he fell off the proverbial theology-turnip truck yesterday...

And yet, I queried him about 2 Pet 3:10 at R.C.'s Orlando conference on preterism several years ago - thinking he would have a top-notch argument to refute all the hypers standing around, and he agreed with THEIR position. (You should have seen the gleeful looks of triumph in their eyes!) DeMar's book "Last Days Madness" was/is the best treatment of an orthodox preterist view around, yet he personally turned me right off that day and made me wonder how much longer he would remain orthodox...

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His" and "how to deliver the godly out of temptations..." (2 Tim 2:19 & 2 Pet 2:9)

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Everyone there seemed like a drone. I was waiting for one of the women to pass around kool-aid cups.

ROFL!!! I know exactly what you mean!

But I'm not going to let YOU get off the hook that easy. Do an exposition for us on the transition pericope. SHOW us what you mean. (BTW, why are you up so late?!?)

 

[Dan....]

Cheri,

I have no problem with the "me and my bible" mentality - I embrace it. And that is part of the reason why so many people are easily led into hymenaeanism - because it seeks to be faithful to the Text and not to man-made creeds or confessions. I would reject all the creeds and confessions in the history of the church if I thought that the Bible taught something else.

First, I am not convinced of partial-preterism and I don't wish to debate the topic. At this point I lean toward idealism, but am not educated enough in either position to debate. My only concern is with the "me and my Bible" idea.

Paul Manata had a good point when he said, "HP's reject ALL of the Church's teaching on certain doctrines and have a "me and my bible" mentality, another key feature of a cult group."

It appears his point may have been missed. So let me emphasize his point.

The "me and my Bible" mind-set plays a major roler in the spread of error. In the quote above you siad "And that is part of the reason why so many people are easily led into hymenaeanism". - Exactly the problem. Those who have the "me and my Bible" mind-set are "easily led into hymenaeanism" because they shut themselves off to the teachings of the church on such issues. The overwhelming majority of the witness of the church throughout history has been in opposition to those who would deny the bodily return of Christ. Yet the one who is being led astray by the hyper-preterist shuts himself off from the witness of the church ("just me and my Bible"), and in essence becomes a rule unto himself. The one who has the "just me and my Bible" mentality is autonomous in his thinking. His own interpretation of the scripture becomes his rule of faith.

We are all fallen creatures. As fallen creatures, how can we explicitly trust our own interpretation of the scriptures? Would not a fallen creature have a fallen interpretation? For one to trump the interpretation of the overwhelming majority of the saints in all ages, he must hold that his ability to reason is greater than theirs.

God has not left us alone. He has given us his teachers (Eph 4:11-14). Far be it from us to neglect the teachers whom God has given us for the "me and my Bible" approach.

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by Dan....]

 

[openairboy]

Days of the Son of Man

Gentry in his article on the transition texts points to "days of Noah" as being peaceful, etc., but I can't buy that. Genesis 6 tells us, "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." Instead of being a time of peace, even though I'm sure people were still marrying and partying, it was a time of violence and chaos. Maybe things changed in the 120 years before Noah entered the ark, but I think the first half of is consistent with the days of Noah.

Thoughts?

openairboy

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by Dan....
The "me and my Bible" mind-set plays a major roler in the spread of error. In the quote above you siad "And that is part of the reason why so many people are easily led into hymenaeanism". Exactly the problem. Those who have the "me and my Bible" mind-set are "easily led into hymenaeanism" because they shut themselves off to the teachings of the church on such issues.

Hi Dan,

While I wouldn't disagree with your statements that the Lord has given us teachers (and each one of us) for a purpose and that the unified witness of the church should be taken into account, I would still stand by the "me and my bible" principle for several reasons:

1) "me and my bible" was sometimes all that the children of Israel had in the face of majority opposition to God (i.e. "hath God said...") from their brethren. (Luther was asked if he alone was correct and the whole world in error.)

2) prior to the discovery/hashing out/development of certain theological concepts there wasn't/isn't a standard other than the bible by which to accomplish this. (BTW, "by what standard" is the rallying cry of the theonomists who seek to accomplish this very thing.) In other words, the apostles had to rely solely on the "me and my bible" principle and the Holy Spirit in order to prove their case for Christ (Acts 17:11)

3) "me and my bible" is the standard by which the creeds and confessions are produced.

4) as witnessed by the Catholics, too close of an adherence to what the "church" says can lead INTO error. (One of the things that bothers me about my reformed brethren is that they seem more eager to quote creeds/confessions than Scripture. Don't get me wrong, I love the creeds/confessions as a witness to what the church has historically held and as a summation of a doctrine, but we should all be able to show from Scripture what we believe when asked - 1 Pet 3:15. In other words, while the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" - 1 Tim 3:15 - this is true only insofar as she correctly adheres to Scripture - the "my bible" part of the principle.)

And to clarify what I had said previously, I did not say that the "me and my bible" principle was "WHY so many people are easily led into hymenaeanism" but rather the REASON why people seem attracted to that viewpoint is "because it seeks to be faithful to the Text" of Scripture.

But beyond all of this is the fact that hymenaeans believe that the sweeping interest in "last things" is a new reformation within the church. That it has come along in the fullness of time, for just such a time. (And holding firmly to the sovereignty of God, I'm not entirely sure that they are wrong...)

Grace and Peace

"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? {31} And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." --Acts 8:30-31

 

[VanVos]

I don't see any problem with having all of Matt 24 fulfilled, but what I do have a problem with is that Gary DeMar says that Heaven and Earth has past away in AD70. I believe Jesus was using such language in verse 35 to express the certianty of the promise. In other words: Heaven and earth will pass away (and they will at the 2nd Coming Rev 21:1), but here is some truth that will always stand! The city of Jerusalem is going to be destroyed!
He also used this type of language to express the immutability of the law Matt 5:18.

I believe that all orthodox preterists should have The Second Coming (Acts 1:9-11), The resurrection ( 1 Cor 15:23-29) , The final judgment (Rev 20:12-16, John 5:28-29) and the NH and NE (Rev 21) as future events. I think to deny any of these doctrines is to wander into heretical waters.

VanVos

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by openairboy
Gentry in his article on the transition texts points to "days of Noah" as being peaceful, etc., but I can't buy that. Genesis 6 tells us, "Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth." Instead of being a time of peace, ...it was a time of violence and chaos.

KUDOS, Keith, for such a brilliant observation! Did you come to that conclusion based on creeds/confessions or the "me and my bible" principle?

 

[VERITAS]

Originally posted by VanVos
I don't see any problem with having all of Matt 24 fulfilled, but what I do have a problem with [saying] that Heaven and Earth has past away... I believe that all orthodox preterists should have The Second Coming (Acts 1:9-11), The resurrection ( 1 Cor 15:23-29) , The final judgment (Rev 20:12-16, John 5:28-29) and the NH and NE (Rev 21) as future events. I think to deny any of these doctrines is to wander into heretical waters.

This is exactly what I'm not convinced of - viz, that if the language of "a new heavens and a new earth" is symbolism for the Gospel Age (and not the eternal state) then why should it be a requirement for orthodoxy?

Case in point, Rev 22:17 says: "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." We don't view the New Jerusalem, the city of God, strictly as the future state/residence of the saints (and this is what the Text is addressing - see vv. 1-2, 4b, 5, 14, 19, etc.) so why do we HAVE TO indentify the language of "a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness" strictly as a reference to heaven AFTER the Second Coming, Resurrection and Final Judgment?

And speaking of creeds/confessions, while this language might (correctly) be employed as a support of those 3 things, is it a separate designation in and of itself in such documents?

 

[ANT]

Originally posted by VanVos
I believe that all orthodox preterists should have The Second Coming (Acts 1:9-11), The resurrection ( 1 Cor 15:23-29) , The final judgment (Rev 20:12-16, John 5:28-29) and the NH and NE (Rev 21) as future events. I think to deny any of these doctrines is to wander into heretical waters.
VanVos

Have you ever read John Owen on the New Heavens and the New Earth? I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm just curious to see what you think of Owen espousing this opinion. Would Owen be wandering into heretical waters?

Do you really believe what people believe about the NH and the NE being a future event would be a determining factor for heresy?




[Edited on 1-14-2005 by ANT]

 

[VanVos]

I thought I might need to explain what I meant by NH and NE. I'am speaking of the creation being glorified Rom 8:18-22, which is what, I believe, we read about in Rev 21 New Heaven (notice the Heaven, singular And a New Earth) I do believe that 2 Pet 3:10-13 was fulfilled in AD70. The New heavens (notice plural) and new earth in where dwells righteousness is the gospel age. This is the fulfilment of the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church Matt 16:18 Heb 12:26-27 and that Christ would be with us by the Spirit until the end of the age Matt 28:20. But the New Heaven and New Earth as we read in Rev 21 is speaking of Glory and the consummation of God's redemptive work.

VanVos

[Edited on 14-1-2005 by VanVos]

 

[VERITAS]

I love your post, Jonathan - the clarification - and I would tend to agree (although I tend toward the opposite view of the passage in 2 Peter 3:10-13), but what about the gates "not being shut" in Rev 21. To me that also speaks of the Gospel Age. One day the gates (or the door) will be shut, the temporal will cease and eternity (for us) will begin (1 Cor 15:53-54).

 

[Areopagus]

Jonathan,

Do you have a scholarly work that I might look at that explains the view you take in 2 Pet. 3?

Thanks,

Dustin...