Friday, January 1, 2010

Todd Dennis — Former Hyper-Preterist speaks out

As was introduced in a previous article (see here), Todd Dennis was instrumental in the online promotion of hyperpreterism.  It was Dennis’ archivist work that gave material to the hordes of hyperpreterist websites that have come & gone since.  But even as Dennis renounced hyperpreterism, he was purposely slow & discerning about speaking out against it.
Like many former-hyperpreterists, perhaps Dennis wanted to wait & see if there was anything of value he could keep from the “movement”.  He probably held out hope (as I did during the last 5 years of being a hyperpreterist) that maybe if the movement could be made more “evangelical”, more “conservative” that it could be legitimate.

Even now, there is a faction of hyperpreterists led by hyperpreterist Sam Frost that is holed-up in one corner of the Internet, trying their best to hold out against the “logical conclusions” of their movement.  As more & more of their fellow hyperpreterists take up positions such as first-century raptures, universalism, or “Covenant Creationism” (non-cosmological/material creation) this little band of wanna-be “evangelical/biblical” hyperpreterists hang on to the last shred of Christian resemblance…by blocking membership to their fellow hyperpreterists & by purposely not mentioning their critics by name.
As Dennis has patiently waited, giving the hyperpreterist movement the benefit of the doubt as if maybe they were just going through growing pangs, the movement has been increasingly moving further & further away from anything that we would recognize as historically Christian.  But it now seems Dennis is ready to speak out completely & clearly on hyperpreterism.  In an article published on 01/09/09 Dennis said:
As with currency, the best way to spot the counterfeit is to know the genuine article very well. And so, perhaps the easiest way to show just how different HyP error is from the entire scope of historical Christianity is to point out the view’s vastly different storyline. (source)
Dennis identifies that hyperpreterism places more importance on the year AD70 than on the Cross.  As hyperpreterists are always trying to claim that it was “finished” in AD70 whereas Jesus said, for all intents & purposes, it was “finished” at the Cross. (John 19:30)
Dennis states more emphatically:
The HyP teaching that the New Covenant wasn’t in its full establishment until long after the cross event shows how Hyper Preterism is fundamentally different from Christianity as it has always been known. This “AD70 storyline” is foreign to the Bible, and to Christianity as a whole throughout all of its centuries and denominations. (source)
Dennis seems to now be saying that hyperpreterism ISN’T just a theological difference of opinion, but is in fact a radical alteration & departure from the Gospel.
To diminish the cross event is not just a small matter of end times disagreement; Rather, it is an attack on the very foundations of Christianity. (source)
The most pointed comments from Dennis come when he actually calls hyperpreterism a “gross heresy” and goes on to relate regret for ever promoting it.
In my honest opinion, this is gross heresy which is worthy to be vigorously opposed. My only regret is that I actually supported this overthrow of the Christian message for over ten years. (The Lord is Sovereign and has His purposes with which I do not dispute; However, from my perspective, it is a regrettable decade of promoting heresy.) (source)
Dennis goes on to cite several hyperpreterist “teachers/leaders” who clearly & inextricably connect their hyperpreterist beliefs with an abnormal AD70 focus.
The powerful visual that Dennis gives is that after the veil in the temple was ripped in two (Matt 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45), the priests frantically must have stitched it back together & so too the hyperpreterists do also try to stitch the veil back together so that they can propagate their AD70 focus over the Cross focus.
I thank Todd for this powerful article & his ever increasing boldness to address hyperpreterism.  The full article is located here:

No comments: