Friday, January 1, 2010

Why it is pointless to discuss Scripture with Hyperpreterists

If you have ever had interaction with a hyperpreterist you will immediately notice their constant desire for you to “prove” they are wrong from Scripture. It sounds like a reasonable & even noble enough request until you realize they aren’t sincere in their request. You see, hyperpreterists do NOT believe anyone can “prove” anything to them. If they will not listen to nearly 2000 years of Christians, why do you think they care to listen to you? (Proverbs 26:4-5) They only want you to “discuss Scripture” (sometimes they call it being “exegetical”) with them so that they can employ their tactic of redefining every theological term they can & force you to acquiesce to the redefinitions. This is the tactic of cults like Mormons & JWs who come knocking on your door to “discuss Scripture”. (see here)


If you refuse to “discuss Scripture” with them, they will claim you can’t “prove” them wrong, they will claim you aren’t being “exegetical” or “expository”. They will claim they hold to “Sola Scriptura” (Bible alone) & if you appeal to 2000 years of Christian interpretation, they will claim that you are either holding to the “traditions of men” or that you are a “Roman Catholic” sold out to “Mother Church”.

Hyperpreterists will go on to ridicule historic Christianity & all the Christians that have come before them, yet somehow hyperpreterists want us to actually believe they desire a sincere “discussion of Scripture”??? They will pretend they are taking up the mantle of the Reformers yet hyperpreterists seem to miss that the Reformers immediately set their pens to writing numerous documents that AGREED with historic Christian interpretation. The attempt by hyperpreterist to latch themselves to the Reformation is comparable to how homosexuals often attempt to latch themselves to the struggle of blacks to assert their God given rights. Both attempts to latch on to a valid cause should be seen as erroneous. Hyperpreterism should NOT be compared with the the Reformation because what the Reformers declared was NOT new nor completely foreign to anything in Christianity, whereas hyperpreterism is NOTHING like ANYTHING in historic Christianity except perhaps the Hymenaeus & Philetus heresy of 2 Timothy 2:16-18.

If you fall for the ploy of just “discussing Scripture” with a hyperpreterist, you will soon find yourself caught up in their morass of redefinitions & redirection just as you would if you “discussed Scripture” with a Mormon or a JW as if they were “brothers”. Before any such “discussion” can take place, the hyperpreterists (or any other heretic) MUST be made to admit/confess that God is Sovereign & as such has NOT allowed His Church to misunderstand an important foundational teaching for nearly 2000 years. And if a hyperpreterist tries to claim that historic Christianity has taught three opposing views of eschatology (premil, amil, postmil) all that time & that all these views can’t be correct, remind the hyperpreterist that ALL of these historic Christian views AGREE in exactly the 3 points that hyperpreterists deny. This is significant & is why hyperpreterism is heresy. It is not heresy simply because we “hate” hyperpreterists or because we “want to be right & claim everyone else is wrong” — as is often the cry from hyperpreterists.

  • Hyperpreterists deny the yet future to us return of Christ.

  • Hyperpreterists deny the yet future to us resurrection of the believers.

  • Hyperpreterists deny the yet future to us Judgment.

And do not let them fool you when some of them try to claim they believe each person will experience these things “personally” in their future. That is STILL NOT what historic Christianity advocates.

I do not say these things just to provoke hyperpreterists, as I already understand ALL hyperpreterists are in Proverbs 26:4-5 mode & are so “wise in their own eyes” that neither you, nor I, nor 2000 years of Christian interpretation will “prove” anything to them — be it from Scripture or otherwise. I write for the sake of someone examining hyperpreterism for the first time. I write for that person flirting with embracing hyperpreterism. I write for that person who may have just accepted hyperpreterism & thinks it has caused them to “grow” theologically. Of course it appears like theological growth compared to many modern expressions of Christianity where we sit in a pew, sing a few sappy songs, hear an emotional message & then go our way. If you have ever attended a JW meeting you will be impressed by their apparent devotion of really digging into & “discussing Scripture”. (I’ve attended a few JW meetings to get firsthand impressions) But this is no “growth” — it is moving from a weak, milk-drinking expression of faith to embracing a “logical” heresy that is NOTHING like historic Christianity.

I am willing & eager to discuss Scripture with brothers but it is pointless to “discuss Scripture” with known, hardened heretics. Their ears, hearts, & minds are stopped up & they only hear themselves & others they think validate their views. This is my answer to hyperpreterists who insincerely demand I “discuss Scripture” with them.


Todd Stevenson said...

Except that your blog is a RCC argument,viz., that 2000 years of church history cannot be wrong. And while certain early church father held to justification by faith alone, Luther never appealed to him. In fact, his tower experience came as a matter of private interpretation. The judicial, forensic aspect of justification was never articulated by any church father. At least, that is the conclusion drawn by Alister McCrath, calling forensic justification a "theological novum." Ironically, the olivet discourse fulfillment has more church fathers than the Reformation's view on justification by faith alone. As a side note, it was the Church's position during the REformation NOT to argue with emerging Prots, but simply ignore them.

JaredMithrandir said...

Tell me, does the form of Preterim advanced by this site believe the events in Revelation happened in the order they are recorded?

Because that is part of my problem with most Preterists. That like Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath they garble the chronology of Revelation.

To me interpreting Revelation chronology is the simple key to making sense out of it.

Joe Mudd said...

The modern church is a mess, all 4 (pre, post, amill, pret) have error that pride keeps them in.
All the while the world around them disintegrates waiting for them to take up the mantle of Christ
and make His enemy's His footstool. Sad BICKERING fools the whole lot of you, more interested in
your bank accounts and retirement plans than changing the world. It's ok though, God will let us all die and at some point long into the future He will find men of faith willing to do His word.
2nd coming of Christ INDEED, when was His first coming? start in the Old Testament and count, just how many times Christ came, physically came. You read without understanding, left to yourselves
you'd still be blood letting for illnesses.

Marc Basis said...

Rod, you have MANY good points and MANY valid grievances, but at the same time you are being extremely unfair and giving Preterists the THIRD DEGREE. When God judges you you will see just how biased and unfair you have been; count on it.

Anonymous said...

This is a great blog-site, thank you so much for it. I will continue to pray for my Preterist, JW, and Mormon brothers and sisters.