Sunday, December 30, 2007

Answering Some Questions Before I Move On

Ok, I am fully intending this blog to simply be a place where I am outlining how & why some people come to full preterism (including how I came to it). Next I plan to outline the exegetical arguments for & against the Full Preterist view. After that I plan to address specific propositions of the Full Preterist view. I did not intend to make this an interactive blog, so please do not take offense if I do not interact with comments. Perhaps when I get done outlining some of these issues I can go back & interact. But, I do want to take a moment to address a few things:

1. I JUST renounced a 15 year belief. Please give me time to see where this is taking me. Some people have accused me of doing this to get attention. Really? Am I getting positive attention? I have gotten more rude emails & unposted comments from friends & foes than ever before – making accusations against me that I can't believe I'm hearing. Also, though I appreciate the encouragement from people like Dee Dee Warren, what would it look like if suddenly tomorrow I started writing articles on her website & hobnobbing with every former “opponent”? Again, please give me time.

2. Some Full Preterists are upset because they say I'm unfairly “lumping” them together with “a few rotten apples” -- Well as much as I am disheartened to cause hurt to some folks, the “lumping” in comes from the fact that I'm NOT talking about some “few” or a “splinter group” within Full Preterism – I'm talking about the main advocates. For instance, where do most of the main advocates of preterism go when they want to post an article or make an announcement? Where do these same advocates go when they want to speak at a conference? – THAT is the place that is really the main representation & mouthpiece of Full Preterism. I think if you find that place you'll soon see why you are being “lumped” together. Do you have any power to not be lumped together with that main group??? Let me tell you what the administrator of that main group has said:

we will put a new face on Preterism, whether our critics like it or not. We will drag them kicking and screaming, and confidently we will reassert that Preterism is about the Kingdom, not about being right on eschatology; (Virgil Vaduva - see source)

We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact. (Virgil Vaduva - see source)
source: (The guy who said these things so much doesn't want people to see them that he has redirected the link to some other site if you try to click it from here. This is just another example of the poor & immature character of the main advocates among Full Preterism. Just copy & paste it into your browser-bar if you want to view it (until he removes it altogether)

So, you see theses guys don't think you people are driving this boat – they think they are & they arrogantly tell everyone that they will “drag” others even “kicking & screaming” along THEIR version & if you don't like it, tough is what they say – they are running the show, not you. So, you are “lumped” together whether you like it or not. You might think you can be a “Full Preterist” over in your own little corner undefined by guys like the one I quoted above but you are only fooling yourselves.

3. Some Full Preterists have been saying my opposition is only on the basis of the poor characters I reference – That is not true. I also have great opposition to many main tenets of Full/hyper-preterism, the first being the common position that the “Law was destroyed” -- this is emphatically untrue, Jesus says specifically that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it – this is something much different than what these people are advocating. (Matthew 5:17)
Again, I will outline more specific doctrine disputes I have as I go along.

4. Some Full Preterists are confused by what they see as a sudden shift by me – yet if they had been paying attention they would know full well it isn't sudden but has been coming along for over 5 years now. Perhaps it first started with the influx of universalism that swept Full Preterism a few years back, then the embracing of “Emergent/Postmodernism” & add to that the neglect by most of the prominent Full Preterists to speak against these issues – oh, but they would still show up at conferences sponsored by supporters of these corruptions -- & typically NOT to speak against these things but just to pat-backs & shake hands with their "dear brothers". Folks, if a group cannot even police itself then something is terribly wrong. Look again at the 1 Cor 5 Church & you will see what happens when people think their “loving tolerance” of corruption is a noble thing to be proud of. This reflects poorly upon ALL persons in the group whether they like it or not – silence is affirmation.

So again, give me time to work through some of this – if you are a full preterist & you just want to ignore what I'm doing, what I'm writing so be it. But just know that for those who have been telling me that all of this should have been an “in-house” discussion & is only giving ammo to the “futurists” -- you'd better believe it. The opportunity for an “in-house” discussion is past – there were too many years of hearing people tell me to shut up & go away, so now this discussion will take place outside & I hope it does give as much ammo as possible to take down every corrupt element of Full Preterism that there is, both corrupt character & doctrine.

Lastly, let me say to those who consider themselves “historic” or partial-preterists who fear what I am doing will even give ammo for futurists to attack their position – be assured I doubt that.

To conclude, I will say, it is not I who has betrayed Full Preterism but Full Preterism betrayed me.


Dusman said...


You said,

"Perhaps it first started with the influx of universalism that swept Full Preterism a few years back, then the embracing of “Emergent/Postmodernism” & add to that the neglect by most of the prominent Full Preterists to speak against these issues . . ."

I appreciate you making mention of this. Within the last year or so I specifically remember listening to a podcast produced by a fairly popular group of FPs wherein some Emergent influences were coming through loud and clear. Specifically, there was at least one show I listened to where specific mention was made of Brian McLaren and his book "A Generous Orthodoxy" and even one FP who ought to know better made a comment that went something like this, "I've given A Generous Orthodoxy out as a gift to friends to read" to which I thought, "C'mon guy, did you hit your head?"

I have read McLaren's writings (and other prominent Emergents) and I fully believe him and others to be bona-fide heretics. The fact that some FPs would positively recommend Emergent writings and tolerate universalism within FP is a sure sign that this movement has no problem with sacrificing biblical truth on the altar of unity. I believe this is at best a serious cause for pause for those who appreciate historic orthodoxy and are evaluating the merits of FP and at worst it is merely one bad fruit out of many of the heretical tendencies of the FP movement.

Thanks for this post. I encourage you to continue as you are able brother!

Dee Dee Warren said...

Hi Roderick, please take your time, and know I am always here for you. I have been your friend through both agreements and our own little spats that we have had with each other - and this friendship will remain. When you feel ready, please do write me. No pressure. I have already seen some of the hostile things said about you - we have this really hostile and belligerent hyperpret at TheologyWeb who said that only reason you have changed your mind is because you want to be a pastor and can't handle it. I set him straight. The same guy spread lies about Todd Dennis saying he was only changing his views because he is money-hungry.

Beretta said...

Roderick, it's a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing. People who have reputations as preterists who then become full preterists (e.g. David Chilton) are doing something scandalous and could be accused of seeking attention as well. Those who return to orthodoxy, I would have thought, are doing something far more mundane.

In any case, it's interesting that full preterists respected your intellect and motives when you agreed with them, but the moment you break rank, you're accused of foul motives and a lack of integrity. It would be a bit rich to accuse you of pandering to the lowest common denominator to "fit in" when that is EXACTLY what the full preterists did to swell their numbers by welcoming universalists.