Sunday, December 12, 2010

Hyperpret Rejects 'Sola Scriptura'

With more and more "anti-hyperpret" websites receding in quality and instead catering to self-indulgences and narcissism there has been less and less spot-light on the daily breakdown of the hyperpret movement. Fortunately, Brian Simmons continues to faithfully document the relevant issues within hyperpreterism.

It has always puzzled me how cults like Mormonism, JWs and Islam became so entrenched in our society. The obvious flaws in these cults should have doomed them from the start. But seeing not only how hyperpreterism has gained acceptance by sometimes otherwise well-intended folks but also how hyperpreterism often gets treated with kid gloves by supposed "Christians" while those same "Christians" attack those who REALLY oppose hyperpreterism -- I can now see how cults have been able to fester.

Ok, I've been saying that hyperprets CAN'T claim "sola Scriptura" because the same Holy Spirit that would have maintained that we have the correct Bible is also the same Holy Spirit that hyperprets claim has NOT, for 2000 years been able to maintain the most basic understanding of eschatology in the Church.

But now we have a real clear quote from an active hyperpret:
"This has particular weight given the stance of sola scriptura full preterists. To trust Scripture, we must trust those who gave it to us as the canon we have: the church. To the extent that we feel the historical church may have entertained inaccurate beliefs in the creeds (viz. eschatology), their evaluation of and/or dependence upon the books of the canon cannot be assumed to be correct. Carrying this further, consider that the books of the Bible themselves are theological literature written by the even earlier church, subject to the same limitations of the later church.
It seems to me that no full preterist has any business claiming 'the Bible alone' without recognizing the Bible's own limitations." -- Hyperpret doubting the reliance on the Bible. source
There you have it, a hyperpret being honestly consistent and realizing that if hyperprets can't trust that God has preserved the most basic understanding within the Church, then nor should hyperprets "trust" those who gave us the Bible; The Church.

Another hyperpret sees where this is leading and chimes in;
"The question must be asked that if these men of faith felt comfortable with its message then why we should be precluded from utilizing it also." -- hyperpret saying he believes we should use the Bible in its present form because "men of faith" have used the Bible. source
So, he tells us we should use the Bible because men of faith have used it, but we're supposed to ignore 2000 years of UNITED belief from those same "men of faith" on the basics of eschatology???

But it doesn't end there. Sam Frost, the "presumed scholar" of the hyperpret movement responds:

"Wow. One might actually want to read what "sola Scriptura" means, and its history (not the Reformation, but the early church). Maybe we can't trust those silly Jews who put Jesus on the cross. After all they "collected" the Hebrew Bible." -- Sam Frost now trying to tell us that the concept of 'sola Scriptura' WASN'T a "Reformed" concept after all. This after he and his buddies are constantly trying to tell us otherwise. source

And it continues, a hyperpret universalist named Davo gets into the act and implies that the NT isn't really Scripture but only commentary on Scripture.

"This is why I believe that the NT may be understood, in part, as a type of midrash if you will on the OT." -- hyperpret implying the NT isn't really Scripture. source

But wait, we hear from Sam Frost M.A.R and editor of A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary (I mean, hey, shouldn't WTS be proud that it had a hyperpret doing this work for its future "Christian" students?)
"I just see one more "plank" being yanked out in the name of 'Preterism'" -- Frost admitting that hyperpret has the reputation of being "liberal and always liberalizing". source

But perhaps the most ironic thing in all of this is Sam and his buddies have derided me for years for saying the first thing that woke me up to realizing hyperpret as a fraud is its constant disdain for "traditional" anything when it comes to Christianity (see example). And here we see it in action. Even more ironic is that, these hyperprets are simply putting Sam's own principles into practice. Sam likes to say, "Paul taught nothing but the OT". Well then if there was no "better covenant" and revealing of the mystery hidden since the ages which we call the Gospel and the New Testament, then no wonder these hyperprets want to dismiss the NT, if not the entire Bible as being trustworthy. These hyperprets are simply trying to put into practice, Sam's own "progressive understanding" and Sam chastises them for it. No wonder more and more hyperprets are seeing Sam as a "partial-preterist" or at least as extremely contradictory.

No comments: