Friday, January 1, 2010

Why Hyperpreterists Want to Shut Us Up

Have you noticed how hyperpreterists are eager to shut up their REAL critics.  Oh, they’ll let you on their forums or let you speak if you play nicey-nice with them but the moment you REALLY start to question their premises, you are labeled, “mean”, “bitter”, or get this one, “divisive”. (nevermind that hyperpreterism is trying to divide Christians from REAL Christianity)
At the home of the so-called hyperpreterist conservatives, an apparent new guy asked:
“i’ve heard the question posed to preterism “if preterism is true,why don’t we have the early church recordings of this victory in Christ, why do we have the early church still waiting for the second coming?”
Now this hyperpreterist website thinks it is such a cut above the original hangout for hyperpreterists (which has since gone completely liberal & has the administrator over there posting hit pieces against former-hyperpreterist Todd Dennis).  But let’s see one of the responses this new hyperpret received from this oh-so “scholarly” community.

“[E]verytime a believer proclaims that “Jesus is Lord,” he is proclaiming the victory we have in Christ! That the futurist segment of the church, has forgotten their birth-right, and like Esau, have traded it for a mess of pottage, does not detract from the birth-right. By Birth, by being born again, we are more than conquerors through Christ!
Even in the early church, we have believers quickly forgetting! Such is the enduring affect of Sin. If some of us seem to be called to a different calling, it is not in our hearing, but in Him who calls us unto Himself, lest we boast even in this! He calls us according to His Plan, and His Wisdom! He works His will into our lives as we submit to His Lordship in us.
So if the early church got distracted from the truth, and forgot from where they came, let us not judge them or the futurist of our day, but let us be grateful that the Lord of the Harvest, has opened our eyes to see, even as He healed the eyes of a certain blind man when there were many blind in the land at that time. Can we say that is not fair that He did not heal all of the blind, but then He is Lord of the Harvest!
Let us also not think that because a certain thing was done, or not done, believed or not believed by the early church, that somehow is elevated in the annals of church History. We have only to read a little bit, to learn that there were plenty of errors in the early church. This in spite of the fact that they had apostolic teaching. Today we have the Holy Spirit who is still leading us into all truth, and this after 2000 years of church history!
Something else to remember, all of the New Testament was written prior to 70AD. This means that all of the believers at that time were infact futurist. Some were so fixated on that futurist hope, that when the plan took a turn, in 70AD, they continued to look to the future, instead of what the Lord was actually doing! We are taught to keep our eyes on the Shepherd, instead of our eschatology!”
Wait, why are the hyperpreterists getting so angry with me for continuously pointing out that their over-arching premise DEMANDS a 2000 year conspiracy - this guy just admitted ONCE again.
This guy seriously wants us to believe that God came in the form of Jesus & yet God  Himself didn’t have the ability to sustain a basic & correct understanding among the people He was teaching.  Secondly, this guy wants us to believe Jesus’ hand-picked apostles were such poor teachers that their students “forgot” what the hyperpreterists CLAIM Jesus & the apostles taught the Church.  Funny since the day BEFORE AD70 Christians were looking forward to (1) Jesus to coming again, (2) the resurrection of the believers (3) the judgment of the wicked & righteous — and then the day AFTER AD70, these same Christians were STILL looking forward to the same things.  WOW!!! talk about short attention spans.  To buy what hyperpreterists are selling you would have to believe the Church was suffering from A.D.D.
Then this guy wants his poor inqurier to believe the “early church” got distracted by their “fixation” on their hope that when AD70 came (& supposedly God changed the plan on them), they didn’t catch it.  WOW!!!
Further, this guy makes this really, really…well stupid statement:
“We have only to read a little bit, to learn that there were plenty of errors in the early church. This in spite of the fact that they had apostolic teaching. Today we have the Holy Spirit who is still leading us into all truth, and this after 2000 years of church history!”
Ok first, we’re talking about the immediate day BEFORE AD70 & the immediate day AFTER AD70.  Maybe this guy should consider he is in ERROR…hmm?  Wonder if he ever considered that.  To top it off, he makes reference to apostolic teaching.  Well,  what’s so special about “apostolic teaching”??  I mean, according to hyperpreterists the apostles obviously couldn’t teach well enough to make sure even a tiny group of people understood what they were saying.  Then this guy has the nerve to allude to where the Holy Spirit is guiding….Guiding WHOM???  What is the context of ???  Jesus is telling the APOSTLES that He was going to send the Holy Spirit to GUIDE THEM INTO ALL TRUTH — the very definition of INSPIRATION, yet this hyperpreterists lifts it & applies it to himself.  No wonder these guys are so arrogant, they equate themselves with inspired apostles.  They think that though Jesus nor His hand-picked apostles could make sure people understood them, somehow these hyperpreterists reading their English Bible suddenly have it all figured out over 2000 years of Christianity????
See, this is the reason hyperpreterists make little websites & then make sure no one will get on there & interact with what they say, because THIS article is what I would have posted in response.  But instead they like to cry & whine that we aren’t letting them go to Christian forums & attempt to dupe others with this junk.
So much for that hyperpreterist site’s claim to have “well tested theology” — with junk as the basis, junk will be the conclusion.

No comments: