Friday, January 1, 2010

Delayed Reaction: A Hyperpreterist Sees the Light

Anyone who has dealt with hyperpreterists knows that what they are  advocating ISN’T just a “minor theology disagreement”, nor is it a “non-essential”, nor is it just about eschatology.  Operating under the hyperpreterist rubric (can I say “creed”), will cause a person to begin to alter all sorts of things they perhaps didn’t set out to change.  After all, they call it a “paradigm shift”.  One such major change is that hyperpreterists MUST reconsider the Creation & Flood accounts.  Holding to the TRADITIONAL beliefs of those accounts is sooooo…well so “old school” or “old magisterium” (hyperpreterist code for “we want to invent something new & chuck the old stuff”).  Any hyperpreterist, be he some newbie or some “leader” with M.A.R. at the end of his name is NOT really fulfilling the mandate of hyperpreterism if they resist questioning (or rather “doubting”) the TRADITIONAL view of the Creation & Flood accounts.
Anyway, a faction of the hyperpreterists has been advocating a “localized” Creation & Flood where they claim it was merely the creation of the “covenant people” — the Jews before they were called Jews & not the creation of the physical planet.  They claim that Adam WASN’T the first created human being but merely the first human with which God entered into a covenant.  So, this view is called “Covenant Creationism”.

A hyperpreterist wrote a book several years ago, called: “Beyond Creation Science” & a new edition was written in 2007-2008 & is being proffered around as a discussion between YEC & OEC (yec = young earth creationism & oec = old earth creationism), BUT that is not what the book is REALLY about.  It is really about trying to get people into hyperpreterism via the back door — sort of like how Mormons advertise on TV that if you write or call, they will send you a FREE KJV Bible — do we really think that is ALL they want to do????  Are Mormons really just “Biblical Cultists”??? (I digress).
After writing against “Covenant Creationism” (hereafter CC) first while I myself WAS a hyperpreterist & now also as a FORMER-hyperpreterist — I pointed out that CC was ultimately teaching a Jewish “localized” or “tribal god” — a god no different than the tribal gods of every other pagan society.  At the time I was blasted by the hyperpreterist community as being “mean-spirited”.
But now, one of their own has SEEN THE LIGHT.
Kyle Peterson, a long time behind the scenes mover & shaker within the hyperpreterist movement just wrote a brief article which though padded with postmodernist platitudes, ultimately raises the EXACT same questions I did over 4 years ago about CC.
The article is titled: YHWH just another local god?
Waaaah!!! that’s a “mean-spirited, hurtful, hateful question”. — no, only when I asked it was it mean & hateful.
Peterson writes:
I’m here to throw out the warning as to where many of these possible conclusions could lead to. I’d like to suggest that the thinkers and theologians consider how local interpretation after local interpretation may affect the gospel story. Once such things are firm in our mind how will we present the work of Christ? As a transcending universal spiritual change between God & mankind? Or is this simply yet another local (myth) narrative detailing the struggle and strife between a society and their god/s? What will set apart the Bible from The Epic of Gilgamesh as we present the good news to others? Whether correct or incorrect, what does one tell people when they explain that the creation story was local, the flood was local, the history and prophecies local, salvation local and destruction local as indicated by Jewish narrative. (source)
Excellent questions but did you notice that even this hyperpreterist realizes THESE VIEWS MAY AFFECT THE GOSPEL????  See, either knowingly or unknowingly even a hyperpreterist realizes hyperpreterism ISN’T just a “minor difference of opinion” — it is a radical alteration of EVERYTHING that has EVER been considered Christian.
He concludes with this:
If everything is local then how do we make the connection that this same God, YHWH, is the Father of ‘all things’ and we need to pursue a relationship with Him? As such I’d like to challenge us to discover the endgame of such reasoning and present the cosmic/universal aspects found in God’s Word.
We don’t & THAT is the problem Kyle.  Now take the next step & see that the ENTIRE premise of hyperpreterism is of this sort.  Hyperpreterism has only 3 possibilities in answering WHY 2000 YEARS OF HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY MISSED WHAT HYPERPRETERISM CLAIMS:
1. 2000 years of Christians were too dumb to understand what Jesus & His hand-picked, Holy Spirit guided, inspired apostles were trying to teach them (this is the most common hyperpreterist answer, yet they try to make it sound less conspiratorial) Pin on to this, the so-called “progressive understanding/knowledge” answer where hyperpreterists try to tell us people are just now beginning to put together “seeds”/pieces of hyperpreterism — it still amounts to 2000 years of Christianity too dumb to even get the basics correct.
2. There has been a 2000 year cover-up/conspiracy where the big-bad “leaders” of “traditional” Christianity (so-called old magisterium) have hidden the hyperpreterist view from the world all this time. Tin-foil hats anyone??? (2nd most given answer).
3. There was a first-century rapture where all the so-called true Christians were removed from the planet, leaving behind only the so-called “second-rank” Christians to teach & guide the fledgling Church & obviously the second-ranks didn’t know what supposedly happened in AD70. Again, it amounts to a very, very messed up Christianity where God supposedly failed to make sure His Church understood what was going on.
All of these answers or forms of these answers show great disrespect for the teaching abilities of God/Jesus, of the Holy Spirit & of the inspired apostles. It is not enough to say, “Well, it’s not God’s fault if people didn’t get it” — ummm NO ONE GOT IT according to hyperpreterists. 2000 years of Christianity would then be based on a complete dunce of a foundation. That would be a pretty bad effort at teaching/revealing the mystery as was supposed to be the case with Jesus’ ministry in the N.T. If the people under the “new covenant” are as clueless as those people under the shadow/type “old covenant”, then why do we call it a “better covenant”???
Lastly, when hyperpreterists claim we are putting the creeds before Scripture, this is not so, BUT we are considering the over-arching premise of 2000 years of historic Christianity, which is a stronger & louder testimony than ANY creed, council, or confession. It is that UNITED testimony against which hyperpreterism makes its outrageous claims. It certainly is a louder testimony than some individual who picks up an English Bible & thinks he has figured out something 2000 years worth of Christians couldn’t.

No comments: