Friday, January 1, 2010

After Show Comments From an Unlikely Source

On April 15, 2009 I did a podcast on the Covenant Radio Internet show & expect to receive perhaps a few typical vague references to it from some hyperpreterists but you can imagine my amazement when none other than hyperpreterist Jason Bradfield — the same guy who has been instructing members of his site that it’s best that they not interact with me ANYWHERE & the same guy who has a policy on his site that if anyone even mentions my name in a post, that post will be “deleted with no questions asked” (ref) — that same Jason Bradfield decided to do a 38 point interaction with the podcast.  I just want to say thanks to Jason & to his members I’d ask if they think it is even in the slightest hypocritical of him but oh well, here we go.  I’ll post Jason’s quoted point & then respond after.  On the site where he posted this, he is known as “kingneb”.  The only reason I don’t give the site is because the site is relatively free from hyperpreterist influence & thus it is not suffering much disruption & division so I don’t want to encourage more hyperpreterist to go there.

Before I interact with Jason’s convoluted comments here, please note how many times he talks about “his views”.  When I address hyperpreterism, I’m addressing the overall view of hyperpreterism.  I’m addressing the dominant strains within the movement.  I’m addressing the more influential advocates in the movement.  Sorry Jason, but to address your “personal veiws” would be like starting up a cult ministry against Mormonism & focus on a guy named Hiram Page?  Ever heard of him?  Nope?  Well there you go.  You are like the Hiram Page of hyperpreterism.
Also note, that since I have arrived at this site, I have attempted to always source-link what I say so people can check me.  Jason, mostly rambles & name calls.
kingneb wrote:
1. Funny how Rod doesn’t explain what led him to [hyper] preterism. He used to say it very bluntly - John Owen’s Death of Death. Now he hides that part…at least he has since converting back over.
Really? I’m hiding that?  Let’s see.  My first non-hyperpreterist blog is STILL up where I “very bluntly” say:
“I do not deny that many theologians throughout Christian history have been “preteristic” — even the book which launched my entrance into Full Preterism, while not being about eschatology could be on the title considered to comport with preteristic notions. The book was “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen – a 17th century Reformer writing on the Limited Atonement. Owen would not have desired a reader take his treatment on the Atonement & turn it into some point for advocating a erroneous eschatology.” (source)
Yep, that looks “hidden” to me — sheeesh
kingneb wrote:
2. Rod now adds a 4th point to [hyper] preterism - “no victory on earth”. Question begging. He is still vaguely defining resurrection to a point where i can’t agree with his definition.
Well, I’d say we could really get into this & see if historic Christianity has taught the “4th point” — of a culmination of God’s plan.  I think we’d find the answer is a resounding, subwoofer, YES!  As for how I have defined resurrection.  How have I defined it any different than the 2000 years of Christians have defined it.  It is mainly the gnostics & the hyperpreterists that spiritualize everything.  You can’t “agree with” THE definition because you don’t agree with Christianity (p.s. — its not “my definition”)
kingneb wrote:
3. Rod says we can go to their site for “relevant” info on [hyper] preterism. Yeah, right. Notice one of Dee’s latest. She writes a whole post making fun of Sam whose posts on a yahoo group include his email’s privacy note… uh…well…because Sam posts to the group using his email…duh. Real meaty stuff there on that blog.
Well, no what is relevant is that Sam Frost (Jason’s mentor) had started adding a little disclaimer to the end of his emails threatening legal protection if anyone quotes his emails without his authorization.  In part the disclaimer says:
“Any reproduction of this email, in its entirety, or in part, will be considered a criminal act under Federal Copyright laws, which reserves all rights of distribution and publication to the creator and copyright holder.” (Sam Frost’s email disclaimer)
The RELEVANT part is Sam started doing this when we began to quote his personal emails to us, which were contradictory to his public comments.  The Bible says, “let your yes be yes & no be no” Mt 5:37 — Why does this guy need to protect his personal from his public theological comments??? More on this here.  So yes, if you want to know what is ACTUALLY going on daily within the movement, then is the best source.
kingneb wrote:
4. Bill questions how we can question whether or not leading scholars “completely missed the boat”. The [hyper] preterists i know don’t say they “completely missed” it… straw-man.
I’d say if leading scholars & laymen alike for 2000 years have somehow missed out in their thinking that Jesus is yet to return, the bodily resurrection of the believers is yet to happen, & the judgment of the wicked & righteous is yet to occur, then yes hyper-preterists MUST say Christianity in general has missed the boat since Jesus’ message was packed with eschatology. And that is EXACTLY what the hyperpreterists Jason hangs with say, either implicitly or explicitly….that’s what hyperpreterism says in general.
kingneb wrote:
5. Rod arbitrarily decides what God will preserve and what he won’t. God will preserve “future coming”; but he won’t preserve everything leading up to that? (amill, postmill, premill)… hmmmm.
Here’s the ole scorched earth policy again.  The hyperpreterist all or nothing mentality.  Again, GOD PRESERVES THE BASICS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.  It is just good presuppositionalism.  If God doesn’t preserve the basics, then every generation should be doubting everything & starting over from scratch, including re-deciding what books should even be in the Bible. Amil/postmil/premil don’t “lead up to” anything, they are just a part of the overall premise of the 3 things we keep repeating that hyperpreterism rejects.
kingneb wrote:
6. RCM [Sam Frost's & Jason's organization for promoting hyper-preterism] does not define sola Scriptura as “just me and my Bible, the heck with the rest of them”. Straw-man.
RCM???  Again Jason is part of one faction of the hyperpreterist movement.  It would be like letting some break off group of Mormonism claim to be the main representative of Mormonism.  But yes indeed, Jason’s faction DOES define Sola Scriptura as “just me & my Bible, the heck with the of them”, otherwise he & his little secluded group wouldn’t so easily brush off 2000 years of UNIFIED Christian interpretation as merely “traditions of men”.  What does that say for Jason’s respect for the Sovereignty of God & for the leading of the Holy Spirit???
kingneb wrote:
7. Notice Bill says that sola fide was “LOST”!!! An essential doctrine was “LOST”!! WHOOPS.
So God is a failure because we claim a true eschatology was “lost” from the apostles’ time (though we do not know if it was fully lost, for no one knows all minds; nor were ALL points lost - partial preterism); YET, God is not a failure even though sola Fide was “lost”…give me a break.
That was certainly not the best word to use, but it is CLEAR from Bill’s overall context that he didn’t mean lost as in ceased to exist, but more in that its adherence waned.  It is easy enough to locate groups of Christians that adhered to sola fide in continuance.  Jason is always looking for any slip to jump on & abuse.  Here is the problem with the second part of Jason’s response.  Even if we granted “true eschatology was lost from the apostles time”, first there is no continuity for hyperpreterism back to the apostles time.  You can’t find anything that even looks like hyperpreterism until the 1800s & nothing like modern hyperpreterism until the 1970s with Max King.  Secondly, if “true eschatology was lost” that quickly (since Christians immediately AFTER A70 were advocating the 3 things Christianity has always advocated), then what does this say about the effectiveness of the apostles teaching ability?  What does it say about the effectiveness of Jesus/God’s plan?  What does it say about the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit’s ability to guide the Church throughout history???  See, hyperpreterism MUST UNDERMINE Christianity at every turn so that hyperpreterism can try to replace Christianity.
kingneb wrote:
8. Rod embraces eschatological relativism. He makes light of the amill, postmill, premill differences in order to make his weak “God is not a failure” argument. He has to do this- else, God preserved error because not all views can be correct.
Really? Is Jason going to keep using the scorched earth policy of destroy everything to win?  He keeps playing the all or nothing card.  Again, it is not “weak” to point out that 2000 years of unified Christians, from all expressions of Christianity have AGREED on the exact 3 things hyperpreterism now denies.  This is SIGNIFICANT.  Of course not all subordinate views can be correct — but does Jason really want to compare that to hyperpreterism rejection of the UNIFIED position of ALL of Christianity???
kingneb wrote:
9. Rod claims omniscience again. He said “no christian” has advocated full preterism until the 1970’s. How does he know that? I guess Rod knows all. Also, he said no one taught this system until the 70’s; he later calls Max King the “founder”; yet, Rod calls John Noyes a “hyper-preterist”. WHOOPS. Somebody doesn’t know how to read a calendar.
Rod changes his history, depending on who he wants to associate us with at the time - those anti-creedal church of christ people or the wife swapper.
Ok you got me Jason, maybe some lonely person claiming to be a Christian in some cave in the year 213AD might have advocated hyperpreterism — sheesh.  Again, during the entire program we kept emphasizing that Christianity is not merely individuals but is a community of saints.  It was DESIGNED that way from the beginning.  So, even IF you could point to some lonely person in a cave in time who held to hyperpreterism, they would be just as much outside of historic, biblical Christianity as modern hyperpreterists.
As for the other part of your statement.  Hyperpreterism in its MODERN form was most certainly credited to Max King in the 1970s — even his own people say so.  See here “Max R. King (born 1930) is the founder of the school of thought known as Transmillennialism. [ie Hyperpreterism]“ & “King created a field of theology that he termed ‘covenant eschatology.’ [one of the first names for hyperpreterism]“  (source) So, yes it is NOT contradictory to say early forms of hyperpreterism existed in the 1800s but its modern version came to fruition in the 1970s with Max King.  Further, it is the original modern hyperpreterists who associate with the “church of Christ” — See this statement from them: “The view first spread among the Churches of Christ in the ’70s and ’80s, and then throughout Reformed Presbyterians.” (source)  Once again, people can believe SOURCE information from hyperpreterists themselves or they can believe a guy like Jason who wants us to believe hyperpreterism might have existed in a cave in AD213…give or take a hundred or thousands of years :wink: .
kingneb wrote:
10. Rod says there is only one verse that talks about the millennium - wrong. Rod doesn’t know his bible.
Stop the presses!!!  Jason, a guy who thinks 2000 years of Christians didn’t “know their Bible” enough to conclude a hyperpreterist interpretation now accuses me of not knowing the Bible — I’m wounded beyond all care.  Jason, of course since you think 2000 years of Christians were too dumb to get it, it really doesn’t bother me that you think I don’t get it.  I guess I’m in good company with all the rest of the saints.  Where does that leave you???  With some theoretical guy in a cave in AD213?  P.S.  Rev 20:1-4 I count as a “passage”, excuse me for using the word “verse”.  You got me!!! Hyperpreterism must be right after all.
kingneb wrote:
11. Rod gets onto me for pointing out “traces” of [hyper] preterism within orthodox scholarship; YET, he says that JS Russell contained “traces” of it, even though Russell believed in a future millennium. So it’s not ok for me to point out traces, but it is ok for him..hmmm..again, he changes his argument to fit the situation.
Actually I NEVER said there were “traces of hyperpreterism within ORTHODOX scholarship” I simply said traces of early hyperpreterism can be seen in the 1800s & I referenced J.S. Russell.  The “traces” you & other hyperpreterists claim are not there — you will cherry-pick Luther, Augustine & others who overall would disagree with 99% of anything hyperpreterism says & you will find that 1% that remotely sounds like hyperpreterism & you will jump on it like piranhas on a corn dog & try to tell people “ah-ha! see a trace of hyperpreterism”.  So, no, it is not ok for you to misrepresent these theologians just so you can’t claim “traces”.
kingneb wrote:
12. Rod said that “historic preterism” was not called that during the time; yet he throws a hissy fit now that we want to use the term Preterism and claims we’re stealing labels. How can we steal something that was never in use?
Though the term was “not really in use” (I don’t think I said “never”) — people just considered it historic Christianity, it didn’t need a new label — however, ANY use of the term preterism DID refer to what you guys are now trying to mislabel as “partial preterism”.  You HAVE stolen the the label by covering up the etymology of the word & replacing it with your own definition…sort of how hyperpreterism does with theological terms & concepts in general.
kingneb wrote:
13. Rod says our leading arguments are time texts. Nope. Read the 30+ articles on Isaiah at [RCM].
First, here we are again, Jason wants to put forth his own little faction of hyperpreterism & expect us to consider it as the main representation of the hyperpreterist movement.  Let’s see — I think Jason was born AFTER 1970, so I think I’ll consider the older, more dominant faction of hyperpreterism when considering what its leading arguments have been — which have indeed been the time-texts.  One of Don Preston’s best-seller hyperpreterist booklets is the one “Can God Tell Time?” — a time-text argument through & through.  Secondly, you CAN’T start in  Isaiah.  This is typically hyperpreterist retro-fitting.  They think they see something in the New Testament & go back to the Old & try to make it fit.  Well, a good Reformed adage is, “What was concealed in the Old is revealed in the New” — Jesus came to REVEAL many of the things people just couldn’t understand without Him.  Think of all the places where Jesus says, “You have heard it said…but I say…”.  Your hyperpreterism is no more in the Old Testament than it is in the New.
kingneb wrote:
14. Rod implies that we have only been exposed to dispensationalism, then over-reacted. Nope. I was a postmill associate pastor. Brandon was postmill. We reacted and responded to our own partial preterism, not dispensationalism. He is projecting, perhaps his own experience, onto everyone else.
I implied no such thing, however I did say hyperpreterism is the other side of the coin of dispensationalism.  I did say that MANY hyperpreterists have only known dispensationalism (even if they briefly embraced other positions, they were still very much dispensationalists at heart).  You’ll even notice that hyperpreterists spend a lot of time comparing the errors of dispensationalism with the supposed “truths” of hyperpreterism.  THAT is what I mean.  Secondly, every time I hear Jason claim he was an “associate pastor” & compare that possibility to how abusive he is to almost everyone that opposes what he advocates, I immediately think of verses like Titus 1:6-9 & 1 Tim 3:7-
“if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled,  holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”
I’m sorry Jason but I would not consider you qualified to be an elder of anyone, regardless of your theological position.  If Sam Frost is the one who made you an associate pastor, shame on him.
kingneb wrote:
15. Rod says we weren’t aware of “historic preterism.” Wrong. Again, i was a “historic preterist” for at least two years before embracing full preterism. Straw-man.
No Jason, you may have been what you guys call “partial-preterist” but you most certainly were not historically a preterist since you STILL misuse that term - you either don’t really understand it or you are purposely misrepresenting it to further your agenda of seeking validity.
kingneb wrote:
16. Rod says we throw “everything” into the past. Wrong.
The CONTEXT was hyperpreterists throw EVERYTHING pertaining to the AD70 events in the past.  Maybe a new set of speakers for Christmas?  Sorry folks, but this got old by #5 of Jason’s comments.
kingneb wrote:
17. Bill says that preterism is the exact OPPOSITE of dispensationalism; yet many here over the years have called me an inconsistent dispy. hmmm.
Right, hyperpreterism is like a spiritualized form of dispensationalism.  We brought this out on the show.  Dispensationalism sees almost everything through a physical lens & hyperpreterism see almost everything through a spiritualized lens — Opposite but same.  Sort of like that old Star Trek episode with the half-black & half-white race fighting against the half-white & half-black race (see here).
kingneb wrote:
18. Rod says that arminianism is heterodox, but he’s not ready to call an arminian a heretic unless “they are really buying into it.”
Of course, his sidekick Dee is a molinist. Does she not really buy into it? To borrow a phrase from [another member of the forum] - this is subjective poop.
Here it is again, the hyperpreterism scorched earth policy of either condemn all or accept all.  That is their “consistency” for you.  Most of the “Arminians” that I would not be ready to call heretics are those who never even heard of the word Arminian.  However, anyone who has ever interacted with a hyperpreterists can quickly see the person begins to eat, drink, & breath hyperpreterism.  I don’t think I’ve met too many hyperpreterists that aren’t “really buying into it”.
Secondly, I wish we’d get it straight as to whether Dee Dee is my sidekick or am I her sidekick?  Well, I guess if hyperpreterists won’t be honest with the origin of the words Preterism/ist nor should I expect them to figure out who is first, Dee Dee or me.
If Dee Dee WAS a full-fledged molinist, I find it mildly amusing that it matters since it is an accusation from a hyperpreterist.  Can a heretic think anything else is heresy?  It would sort of be like a Mormon downing JWs.  Who wins in the end?  And hey Jason, why use the word “poop” just come out & use the street word since Sam, your moral guide says its ok when done in appropriate company…when is that again???
kingneb wrote:
19. Rod hints to the Covenant Creation crowd within preterism but fails to tell his audience that not all embrace that sect; including myself. I have aggressively opposed it. In fact, Rod, when he was supposedly unpreterizing himself, joined us on a podcast to argue against it.
The Covenant Creation faction is part of the dominant faction Jason — again, your little faction holed-up in your corner of the ningosphere is rather minuscule in comparison.  Even your fellow hyperpreterists have claimed that if you guys don’t embrace the Covenant Creation view, your little faction will be left in the “dustbin of history as just another remnant of curiosity” (source).  As for me arguing against Covenant Creationism as I was coming out of hyperpreterism — yes indeed, I kept thinking that I could maybe remain in the movement if we could purge it of its more liberal elements, but soon I realized that its liberal elements WERE the core of hyperpreterism.  It was pointless to fight any longer.  You can keep the delusion going until that dustbin comment comes true.
kingneb wrote:
20. Rod mentions Preterist Archive and how everyone got their info from there. Nope. RCM does its own research and writes its own material.
I actually warned people about quotes there, when Todd was still a preterist, because one time on paltalk he took a paraphrase of mine regarding McClintock and Strong’s article of resurrection, typed it up, and attributed my paraphrase as a direct quote. That made me leary of Todd’s site ever since. Preterist Archive had zilch to do with my preterism and zilch to do with my website.
Again with the ME! ME! ME! routine of Jason wanting to put forth his faction as something significant.  Are you seeing a pattern here with this guy?  Anyhow, since the first social sites for hyperpreterists did indeed lift material directly from the Preterist Archive, yes by way of proxy, even Jason’s little group owes Todd of Preterist Archive alot — after all Sam Frost cut his hyperpreterist teeth with the hyperpreterist Internet community by writing articles on Planet Preterist — the site that jacked…I mean borrowed profusely from Todd.  All the other stuff Jason says it almost humorous considering Jason have a social group named…you guessed it?  THE PRETERIST ARCHIVE (see here)  Nope, Todd certainly hasn’t influenced you at all.  You haven’t jacked…uh borrowed anything from him.
kingneb wrote:
21. Rod says we flatter people. Do i flatter y’all enough? Yeah, i’ve never called anyone names. lol.
Well here is one thing I’ll have to say I agree with Jason on — he himself isn’t very good at the flattering & pandering part but guys like Sam certainly make up for that.  Listen to Sam (here) as he butters up Gary DeMar for 3 minutes, even reminding Gary how they once shared a room together — good ole buddy ole pal — “You ain’t gonna call me a heretic after all that now are ya?” was the point of all the flattery.  I’d say Jason is more of an abuser then a flatterer.
kingneb wrote:
22. Rod says that Kelly Birks is probably one of the only guys with a degree. False.
The word probably isn’t ONLY, however yes Sam has a M.A.R. degree. Anyone know what that is???  Master of Arts in Religion.  I don’t want to take away from it but it slaps harder when a guy actually goes to seminary to study theology & STILL ends up espousing heresy.  The only thing that is false is that Jason’s comments are false because he keeps making unfounded & unsubstantiated statements without ANY sourcing.  Typical.
kingneb wrote:
23. Bill calls attention to Rod getting hate-mail; death threats, etc. Of course, they don’t tell you that we have received the same. We too have stories after stories; not to mention Rod harassing spouses. Poor ole’ Rod.
Actually I believe it Jason.  A person can’t go around abusing people as much as you have without being threatened by someone, but I’d imagine you have been threatened more by atheists & such than by people claiming to be Christians.
Here’s that “Rod is harassing spouses” line again.  Please source this accusation Jason & we can see what really happened.  Until then I see no need to answer it.
kingneb wrote:
24. Notice that Rod even admits that he has not given us much Scripture. That’s because he can’t argue from Scripture.
Whoa, what happened to the “clarkian logic” that Jason claims he is always using.  Imagine this.  I am in a battle with another person but I don’t pull out a whammy & flatblast them…does that mean I don’t have a gun???  Sheesh. Rather, the radio show, as Bill kept emphasizing was not meant as a point-by-point refutation of hyperpreterism.  It was an introductory to the movement & what happens when a person interacts with it.  Never did anyone say we couldn’t argue against it from Scripture — as a matter of fact I have begun just that process here & will continue in due time.
kingneb wrote:
25. Bill implies that Preterists are ignorant of Church history. How does he know this? This is a stupid statement and false.
Again more statements without validation.  Just name-calling.  Ok how about this Jason, either hyperpreterists are ignorant of Church History or they wantonly deny it so as to propagate hyperpreterism?  Either way, hyperpreterism defames historic Christianity.
kingneb wrote:
26. Bill said he doesn’t have to have a strong systematic framework to combat preterism. Church History is enough.
Nope, Church History, or more specifically agreement with the community of the saints for 2000 years is an important regulator against a “just me & my Bible” approach. THAT is what Bill was saying but you keep on throwing out misrepresentations until maybe one sticks.
kingneb wrote:
27. Bill implies that 2,000 years of church history is required to understand the Bible….people wouldn’t fall into certain things if they knew their history… hmmm…wander how folks in ad 71 figured things out? Clearly an attack on the perspicuity of Scripture.
Once again, Bill is talking about agreement with the community of the saints & the folks in AD71 agreed with the folks in AD30-70 & with the folks from AD72-2009 & beyond.  It is hyperpreterism that is claiming something new & attacking not only the perspicuity of Scripture but all of Christianity from day one.
kingneb wrote:
28. Rod implies that we think Jesus allows us to interpret things any ole way we want, regardless of the apostles teaching. Another stupid and false comment.
More name calling by the loving “associate pastor”.  It is hyperpreterists who not only imply that we should interpret things any ole way we want regardless of the apostles, but hyperpreterists MUST claim that either the apostles were ineffective at teaching or that 2000 years of Christians were too dumb to get it.
kingneb wrote:
29. Rod brings up [hyperpreterist] Ed’s [Stevens] rapture theory; again not informing his listener’s that Ed’s view is radically rejected by many [hyper] preterists, including the other names he mentioned.
Well actually, since you guys don’t inform your own members of ANYTHING, you have new guys still asking what Transmil is, I’d think that my mentioning Ed Stevens’ rapture view was significant.  Especially in light of
1) It is one of the only detailed attempts by hyperpreterists to explain why the Christians in AD70 the day after the destruction of Jerusalem weren’t saying, “Jesus came back! Jesus came back!” as if hyperpreterism is correct.  Most within your little faction won’t touch the issue besides claiming implicitly & sometimes explicitly that those AD70 Christians must of just been too dumb to have understood.
2) Stevens view at least comports with J.S. Russell’s, Ernest Hampden-Cook & other proto-hyperpreterist on a supposed 1st-century rapture.  What do you have Jason?  A little sub-faction of hyperpreterist who don’t even attempt an answer.  It’s not my job to inform your new recruits, I’m speaking to Christians, not hyperpreterists.
kingneb wrote:
30. Rod says that [hyper] preterism is not part of the christian community because the christian community is not going to accept [hyper] preterists. What a ridiculous comment. Logic class, anyone? Also, i was accepted at a Sovereign Grace Ministries church. Still friends with some to this day.
Is that really what I said in full context Jason.  As for the second part.  Your being openly accepted as if you are a Christian by any group that claims to be Christian only proves that they don’t really care what you believe as long as you don’t cause too much trouble.  I’m friends with atheists to this day, does that mean I validate anything they believe?  Why are hyperpreterists always claiming validation by way of who accepts them???
kingneb wrote:
31. Rod says [hyper] preterism affects “all” your “ologies”. I guess when you say something over and over enough times, it comes true. He hasn’t proven this one bit. Can you say “brainwashing”?
Really?  So when Jesus preached, “Repent & believe for the kingdom is at hand” & a hyperpreterist comes along & says, “Nope, it is not at hand”, that some how doesn’t affect anything but eschatology??  When hyperpreterists claim there is a complete end of sin that somehow doesn’t affect anything but eschatology??  When hyperpreterists claim the devil is gone that somehow doesn’t affect anything but eschatology?  When hyperpreterists say THE jugdment happened in AD70 that somehow doesn’t affect anything but eschatology??  Even the more dominant faction of hyperpreterists recently said:
“Is it possible that [hyper] Preterists have yet to explore the full implications of  [hyper] preterism in the first chapters of Genesis? Advocates of Covenant Creation suggest that it is time to self-consciously rethink Genesis creation according to [hyper] Preterist principles. “ (Tim Martin — source)
I’d say this guy thinks that his hyperpreterism is affecting all of his “ologies”, including his concepts of creation…which affects the very beginning of “ologies”.  But if that is not enough, a hyperpreterist on Jason’s own website recently had this observation:
“It is very easy for us to say that we are Full [hyper] Preterist or that we believe in Full [hyper] Preterism. My question is, do we then WALK in Full [hyper] Preterism? Holding onto the gifts and the offices of the NT church, is not walking in Full [hyper] Preterism from what I see in the Word.” (Hyperpret Lori — source)
So you see, only INCONSISTENT & perhaps not fully honest hyperpreterists would claim that hyperpreterism only affects a person’s eschatology. (that’s even according to hyperpreterists themselves)
kingneb wrote:
32. Rod misrepresents many [hyper] preterists by saying that we think judgment is no more. Blatant lie. I don’t teach that.
How did “many” get to “I”…Jason by himself?  More ME! ME! ME!  I’m not here to talk about Jason’s customized, individualized beliefs.  We’ll get into many, many source-links that do indeed show that hyperpreterism on a whole advocates that THE judgment happened in AD70.  Now, if individuals like Jason want to be inconsistent & claim there is an individual judgment for people perhaps at the time of physical death, THAT still is NOT historically Christian.
kingneb wrote:
33. Rod misrepresents [hyper] preterists as throwing away all of Church history. another stupid and ill-informed remark. One has to wonder how stupid Bill has been for the past two years having guests on his show who throw away all of christianity.
Yet more name-calling & abuse by the one time “associate pastor”.  I guess if you want to correct me Jason, I could rephrase it that hyperpreterist cherry-pick Church History looking for “traces” that they think support their heresy but beyond that they do throw it away.  As for Bill & the show, he has explained it here.  The way you present it, it is as if every show had a hyperpreterist guest.  The show addressed OTHER things as well.  You & your buddies more than anything I could have said to Bill helped Bill see what hyperpreterism is all about & I suspect the more you talk the more people will also realize what it’s about.
kingneb wrote:
34. Bill makes another fallacious appeal to the majority regarding the apostles creed.
Yes, yes, it is always a “fallacy” to represent something by appealing to its dominant expression.  Man-o-man, what five & dime “logic” is this???
kingneb wrote:
35. Rod begs the question in answering whether one is a christian or not by asking whether or not they accept Christianity.
So we can’t answer whether a male is a male by asking whether the person has physical attributes of a male?  Again, I think Gordon Clark would have given you an F.  So a Mormon should be considered a Christian even though he doesn’t accept anything like historic Christianity????  The only thing I’m begging is that I can get to the end of your points without dying of laughter.
kingneb wrote:
36. Rod says that [hyper] preterism is largely advocated within church of christ. How does he know that? There is that God-complex again. Also, Rod apparently doesn’t understand that the internet does not define all of reality.
Well, as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Here we go again Nanc”.  Jason makes these statements (36 now without one source reference) & here I come with the sources.
1) From the first & most dominant modern hyperpreterist group, this statement:
“The view first spread among the Churches of Christ in the ’70s and ’80s, and then throughout Reformed Presbyterians.” (source)
2) Unless a person is purposely trying to ignore the obvious they would know that the first, main & STILL most dominant advocates/leaders of the hyperpreterist movement ALL come from a “church of Christ” background:
  • Max King
  • Tim King
  • Don Preston
  • Ed Stevens
  • Virgil Vaduva
  • Jack Scott
  • William Bell
  • Kurt Simmons
  • J.L. Vaughn
Again Jason, I think it is delusional if you think your little faction is the dominant representation.  It is not.  Rather, I think you just don’t want to admit to yourself what the real origins of the hyperpreterist movement are, in the same way many American socialists like to ignore the roots of their socialistic ideology.
kingneb wrote:
37. Bill says that people should investigate these things for themselves. Yet, Rod came here with the goal of getting [hyper] preterism off the site. Rod only wants people to hear one side of it - his. And because he’s a supposed expert.
Really?  I came to this site to get hyperpreterism off it?  I’m not the one with an entire social group on this site dedicated to the promotion of anything, whereas it could be shown Jason is on this site merely to promote hyperpreterism.  And I’m also not the one that never source links to stuff or tells people to stop interacting, or am so afraid that I tell people to not even mention another persons name. See where Jason has a policy on his site where if someone even mentions my name, that posting will be removed — (link here)  Yet here is Jason writing a 38 point interaction, something he tells his own site members they can’t do on his site without having it deleted with “no questions asked”.  Real “consistent” there buddy-boy.
The only “expertise” I might have about hyperpreterism is that I’ve seen it first-hand for 15 years & I can actually SOURCE LINK so other people can check me instead of simply calling people “clowns”, “stupid”, “dipstick”, “boobs”, “low-lifes” & all such abuses.
kingneb wrote:
38. The show’s motto is “examining tradition in the light of God’s Word.” Really? Bill ended the show basically telling us that preterism should be rejected because tradition can’t support it.
The motto should be changed, “Upholding Tradition Regardless of God’s Word.”
I don’t think it is coincidence that your last point is on tradition because THIS is exactly where hyperpreterists fail the most — they think “tradition” always means the erroneous “traditions” or erroneous additions to Christianity, whereas the Bible talks about ANOTHER kind of “tradition”
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thes 2:15
It is the “traditions” passed on by Jesus to His hand-picked apostles.  The “traditions” passed onto the community of saints which hyperpreterism REJECTS & wants to replace with a NEW tradition that has no foundation but is built from private interpretation, completely disconnected from those same “brethren” that were called to stand fast.  Hyperpreterism MUST claim that those Christians DIDN’T stand fast & frankly that no Christians stood fast for 2000 years (well except maybe that theoretical guy in the cave in AD213)
kingneb wrote:
How much exegesis did you hear in that hour plus show?
Folks, there are reasons why Rod was rejected by and large by the online [hyper] preterist community before he hit to the road. This show reveals a lot of that.
If i was orthodox, i would be embarrassed by such a ridiculous podcast.
38 points & how much sourcing did we see on Jason’s part?  Name-calling, other abuses & appeals to his “personal” beliefs but not one source.  However the show stated upfront that the purpose was not to exegete every little text in 1 hour & 8 minutes.  It was an introduction & an overview.  What Jason does here reminds me of the guy in school who would go around raising his fist & if a person flinched, claim that person is afraid — um no.  The only flinching was to move my hand to the mouse to copy the source-link that refutes the things Jason wants people to just believe because he said so.
Yes, you are right Jason, I hope the show did reveal why ** I ** rejected the hyperpreterist movement by in large even while I was in it — the strained, illogical, erroneous premises, the antinominal culture, the moral degradation, the arrogant egotism, & the private interpretation motif, & abusive personalities of it was disgusting to the core.
Lastly if nothing else, I’m glad here you admit you are NOT orthodox.  Thanks & thanks for helping me display how hyperpreterism operates, you did a great job!

No comments: