Friday, December 10, 2010

The 'Roderick Edwards Argument' Takes Down Hyperpreterists?

Whenever someone leaves the hyperpreterist movement, one of the first things that happens is hyperpreterists come out of the woodwork DEMANDING that the former-hyperpreterist give their "new view" on eschatology.  First of all, the whole thought process exposes what is wrong with hyperpreterism in the first place; it is a radical individualistic interpretation of the Bible.  Hyperpreterism, much like liberal politics thinks that the things they do, others do or should do also.  In this case, since hyperpreterists are prone to putting forth "their view", their personal view on eschatology they also want to hear "your view".

See, it becomes a matter of chest-thumping one-upmanship with hyperpreterists.  They claim they are more "consistent" or more "logical", or more "exegetical" -- no matter what "view" anyone puts forth.  We have seen this with hyperpreterists like Mike Sullivan.  It is pointless to engage them since they promise to ignore what you are saying before you even start.

It is not about presenting a personal "view" -- rather let us be about determining the Christian view on any topic instead of being so eager to put forth our own personal "view".  After all, we DO believe there is a UNITED Christian view on any given topic don't we???  Or are we going to give the hyperpreterists their way in the doors of our hearts and minds by wrongly agreeing with them that Christianity has been in doctrinal chaos for the last 2000 years???

This brings us to the title of this article.  In a discussion with hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost, excoriating Frost for trying to re-image if not leave the hyperpreterist movement altogether; Frost's fellow hyperpreterist Jordan Grant had this to say:

"It's so crushing to see the Rod Edwards argumentation being used. I mean, I saw it with Sharon...and Jason, and I sure hope Sam doesn't follow suit." -- source

What IS the 'Roderick Edwards Argument'???  I thought according to compromisers like Kenneth Talbot, Phil Naessens, Paul T Gates, and Dee Dee Warren, my "arguments" weren't doing anything to thwart hyperpreterism but here, my "argument" (whatever it is) is credited with taking down not only 4 hyperpreterists, but such big names as Jason Bradfield and Sam Frost himself.  Now, I am not arrogant enough to claim such.  And Frost himself is not giving up on hyperpreterism, he is merely trying to be like his mentor Talbot and tweak it into a more "realized" form.

What is REALLY causing trouble with guys like Frost and Bradfield at least, is NOT the 'Roderick Edwards Argument' (since I don't have any personalized eschatology), but it is the force of historic Christianity coming to bear on them.  This is the reason I was sooooooooo opposed to Talbot and his direction of offering yet ANOTHER brand of preterism he planned to call, "Realized Preterism".  Why didn't Talbot just profess the Christian position on eschatology???  By Talbot implicitly conceding to the hyperpreterist mantra of 2000 years of doctrinal chaos and thus a need for some new eschatological view, Talbot had already conceded the battle to the hyperpreterists.  This is the reason the so-called "anti-prets" are in such disarray today.  Ever since they ushered Talbot into their camp, no doubt hopeful his name would lend some power to their cause, the anti-prets have been tripped up.

Rather, it is NOT the 'Roderick Edwards Argument' that is stopping these folks in their tracks -- it is historic Christianity.  It is the FACT that whether we look at; pre-Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, modern Evangelical, Arminianistic, or Calvinistic Christianity, ALL of these expressions of historic Christianity have been UNITED on 4 basic eschatological points:

1. Jesus is yet to come.
2. The collective resurrection of the believers is yet to be.
3. The collective Judgment of the wicked and righteous is yet to be.
4. There will be an end of sin and culmination of God's plan for humanity on earth.

Departing from ANY of these 4 basics puts a person outside of historic Christianity and in effect makes whatever the person's "view" may be, OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIAN.  It is this ARGUMENT, the historic Christian argument that will win the day EVERY TIME!  God is sovereign and sustains truth - if not, then we all in a hopeless state.  We then will await the next Muhammad, the next Joseph Smith jr., the next Charles Taze Russell, the next Max King to come along and claim they have found some long lost or never before espoused doctrine.

Please pray for the folks Mr. Grant mentioned.  They are at a pivotal point; heresy or Christianity?

1 comment:

Roderick_E said...

Here is yet ANOTHER hyperpret that sees that the "historic Christianity" -- God's sustaining is the argument being used against hyperprets. Hyperpret Larry Siegle writes on Jan 30, 2011 --
"NOW, suddenly "2,000 years of church history" (an argument that does not even make good nonsense) ala Roderick Edwards is now being championed as the right approach all along." -- ref