Recovery Room — Installment #1: Admitting the Addiction

After a 15-year stint within the movement called “hyperpreterism” & my eventual departure from that community. I thought I could just walk away in relative peace but more & more I see that there are many unanswered questions for those either still trapped in hyperpreterism or those toying with embracing it. Some have asked me if I left hyperpreterism because of exegetical reasons or because of “personal” reasons. As I tried to demonstrate other places, the personal reasons, such as the perpetually corrupt people were like the smoke indicating a possible fire – as I examined further, the exegetical reasons (the fire) became apparent.
Praying & mulling over how to best address this situation, I have decided to focus on helping people leave or avoid hyperpreterism completely. If you are looking for a way out of hyperpreterism, this blog is written for you.

In the coming installments I shall outline practical issues & exegetical issues. I will address some of the pointed questions I had as I considered leaving hyperpreterism; such as what alternatives are there? I mean, isn’t futurist dispensationalism still wrong even without hyperpreterism? Aren’t some of the arguments of “partial preterism” inconsistent? What about all the apparent biblical support that seems to point to an imminent, first-century return of Christ? Do we just chuck all of that? I plan to interact with that in an exegetical manner & without offering some other “ism” for the person to embrace.

Recovery Room — Installment #2: Vital Vaccinations

Not every Christian is at risk of contracting the disease of hyperpreterism but rather it requires special circumstances before a person is ready to accept hyperpreterism. Just as with certain diseases, like STDs not everyone is at risk. Certain actions or steps will make a person a prime candidate for becoming a hyperpreterist. In this installment of the series of articles called, “The Recovery Room” I shall discuss those pre-conditions & how a Christian can be vaccinated against not only contracting hyperpreterism but a host of other infectious & faith destroying heresies. The first steps for new hyperpreterists will require some specific circumstances. Below I list 4 things a potential hyperpreterist must meet before he can cross over into that movement.

Recovery Room — Installment #3: Dissecting the Delusion

Someone reading this series recently wrote me to say that even though they see the errors of hyperpreterism they also find it fascinating. Yes, of course it is fascinating, that is part of the allurement. Crime stories & major disasters also fascinate us but not many of us would desire to find ourselves part of those events.
In this installment (part 3) of “The Recovery Room” we will begin what may be compared to a live autopsy of hyperpreterism. Just as with a real autopsy, the examiners would wear protective clothing & masks to avoid contamination of themselves. It is therefore highly suggested that you read installment #1 and #2 before proceeding. 

Recovery Room — Installment #4: Critiquing the Critics

It is time to turn our attention toward the critics of hyperpreterism. Our first question is, should every critique of hyperpreterism be lauded as a good thing simply because it is being critical of what we consider an error? This concept of being happy with all critiques of hyperpreterism is perhaps based on the old axiom; “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. We do not agree with this sentiment because often, the critiques are the very “enablers” of hyperpreterism. For instance, Thomas Ice is the general editor of an anti-hyperpreterist book called “The End Times Controversy” – the book’s authors are mainly from a dispensationalist background. Dispensationalism is as much an error as hyperpreterism & is probably the very thing that has caused so many people to over react & embrace hyperpreterism. Therefore, joining with one error to refute another error is ultimately self-defeating & hypocritical.

The Preterist Blog Series

From 2007-2009 I published over 50 articles on the website PreteristBlog.  The understanding between I, the administrator and the other authors was that all content was property of the respective authors.  I have since withdrawn my support from PreteristBlog.  I have repeatedly and respectively asked that ALL of my articles be deleted from that site.  Unfortunately, the administrator, Dee Dee Warren refuses to remove my articles, implying I need something in writing (I'll check my email history).  This action is hypocritical of her as she agreed that it was wrong when hyperpreterist Virgil Vaduva did the same thing to the over 150 articles I'd written for  Planet Preterist.

Warren has made an announcement that she will arbitrarily edit my articles on PreteristBlog -- so, for preservation I have quickly moved my articles from that site to unpreterist.blogspot.com.  You can scan through them by selecting the category pretblog-series

I want to thank Dee Dee for the opportunity to write on that forum over those two years and especially thank the readers. However, I would always suggest that an author get IN WRITING a specific agreement to ownership of their material and what happens to that material if they should leave the site.  I guess this is what I get for being too trusting.

May God bless and keep them in all their endeavors,
Roderick

Hyperpreterist Declaration or Cultic Liberal Manifesto?

Recently at a conference sponsored by the most liberal faction of hyperpreterism a “declaration” was offered for people to sign. When you read it, you will see it sounds more like a socialistic manifesto where big, bad, evil power hungry men have kept his thumb on the poor downtrodden common man. (”Yeah dudes! power to the people!”) This is evident when you consider that the host of the conference is a guy with a real socialistic background.

But perhaps what is more shocking is that some of the signers of this “declaration” were from the “quasi-conservative” faction of hyperpreterism – I guess they really are “all in this [heresy] together”.

The cultic liberal manifesto follows:

Another Hyperpreterist’s “Journey” Ends at Atheism

Hyperpreterism is the teaching that against all of historic Christian interpretation, that the Second coming of Jesus, the general resurrection of the believers, & the Judgment all occurred in AD70.  Hyperpreterism is often that last stop before the person finally takes the leap of unfaith into atheism.  I know at least 6-7 former hyperpreterists who have become functional atheists & now yet another man has come out & admitted he no longer believes in God.

 Jared Coleman, who was a former administrator of the most vocal hyperpreterist website; “Planet Preterist” has come out & revealed:

Hyperpreterism’s New Hero

While I was a hyperpreterist there was always a certain anticipation in the movement that all we needed to really get hyperpreterism accepted was to find a “big name” to accept it. The reasoning was that if we could get a well-known person with lots of influence to accept hyperpreterism then not only would this give hyperpreterism the door into validity, but it would allow us to have a spokesperson, a posterchild, a hero for hyperpreterism.

How Hyperpreterism Impacts

Recently, some hyperpreterists have been asking themselves how their hyperpreterism has “impacted their walk with Jesus Christ”. In response, many of them talk about how it has caused them to realize Jesus’ role as prophet, priest & king. I wonder why they never realized that before. Have they ever considered the fault may lie in themselves?

But it is one specific response that caught my attention. Sam Frost, known as the “presumed scholar” within hyperpreterism because of his erudite blathering as he talks over most everyone that ever has a “face-to-face”, phone conversation with him, made some very outlandish comments.

More Silliness from Sammy the Supposed Scholar

Not too long ago I brought to attention that Sam Frost, the leader of the quasi-conservative faction of hyperpreterists & the supposed scholar had made some more outrageous claims such as claiming “God ordains error in order that we might come to understand the truth” (see here)…your postmodernist buddies would be proud Sammy!

But now Sammy has been spouting more silliness. In a recent article*, Frost tries to compare hyperpreterists to Martin Luther & the other Reformers. He even tries to utilize the argument I used to make as a hyperpreterist – that the first Reformation happened during the advent of the printing press & the “second Reformation” (hyperpreterism) is happening during the advent of the Internet. I guess now that I’m not advocating hyperpreterism Sammy felt safe to plagiarize ideas.

Christ’s Resurrection & Ours – Refuting Hyperpreterist Rubbish

If hyperpreterist treatment of words & concepts wasn’t already too myopic (they like to think they are “consistent” for crowbarring words & concepts into one meaning), the hyperpreterist treatment of Christ’s resurrection compared to the believers’ resurrection is the most flagrant example.  Yet, you’ll see they aren’t as “consistent” as they think.

Historic Christians are “Imbeciles”???

It never ceases to amaze me… the hypocrisy within hyperpreterist circles is astounding.

They get so upset when they are called heretics, though clearly that is what they are.  Not because we are trying to be mean to them or put ourselves up as better than they, but they are heretics because the Bible says they are.  Any teaching that DIVIDES itself & its adherents from the teaching of the apostles (i.e. the historic Christian Church) is a heresy & those “teachers” are heretics (Rom 16:17-18).  I don’t care how buddy-buddy that “teacher” has been with orthodox people in the past.  I don’t care how much name dropping they do.  I don’t even care how often they boast about their degrees – if they divide people from the faith once delivered to the saints, then they are heretics.

The Barnabas Debacle

Scripture not only teaches us by the things that did happen but also by the things that did not. One important lesson can be learned from the situation with the apostle Paul & his ministry partner, Barnabas.

In Acts 15:36-42 we see the subject of this article:

A Hyperpreposterous Interpretation of Dan 12:4

What follows is a hyperpreposterous interpretation of Dan 12:4, utilizing the newly found hermeneutics of hyperpreposterism. Though hyperpreposterism had its official beginning in 1971 when the now reclusive Max Klingtobadpremises first advanced the theory, hyperpreposterous have an elaborate way to see hyperpreposterism in every theological writing they read. But without further delay (see, the veiled time-text reference there???)…I give you this amazing life-changing interpretation.

Don Preston Resigns Because Hyperpreterism Fails to Grow

What follows is a transcript & the actual audio of Don Preston’s resignation speech given at his hyperpreterist church in Ardmore OK. The church had existed for over 16 years but as Preston himself says, the “failure to grow” was his motivation for resigning. This is very significant because not only was this one of the longest established hyperpreterist congregations but it was headed by the hyperpreterist movement’s most esteemed speaker. Now folks, if hyperpreterism isn’t going to grow under the guidance of a guy like Preston, then maybe these people need to ask why.

The Promiscuous Premise of Hyperpreterism

You have heard people call for Christians to be more “open-minded”. Well, who wants to be considered “closed-minded” or “narrow-minded” so, often when a Christian is accused of being so, they will quickly try to show how they too are “accepting”. But does the Bible actually call us to be “open-minded”…when it comes to beliefs & ideology?

Being Thrown Under the Pander-Bus

Over the last three years, the hyperpreterist movement had been struggling with an internal turmoil over whether the most consistent expression of hyperpreterism is “universalism”. (The belief that God no longer ultimately condemns anyone)

 

 During this struggle, lines were being drawn & today we see the outcome.  The seat of the “preterist universalists”(PU) lies with the liberal faction, headed by long time postmodernist/Emergent Church advocate Virgil Vaduva.  Whereas those opposed to the idea that “full preterism” necessarily leads to universalism have been seen in men such as Kurt Simmons, Mike Bennett & Jason Bradfield.

Eschatology Matters?

Perhaps some people will think that eschatology doesn’t matter. After all, we are often told eschatology is too vague, too symbolic a thing to worry about. Let people teach whatever they will –God will sort it out in the end. Yet is this how the Bible tells us to interact with doctrine? As if it doesn’t really matter.

Some of you know that PreteristBlog has some outstanding issues with Gary DeMar’s tacit support of hyperpreterism. We have tried to get DeMar to see that he is fostering & causing many people to adopt hyperpreterism & as you’ll see further in this article, even the hyperpreterists say this themselves. So, I would like to share an email I had recently written to a person that wondered it DeMar’s association with hyperpreterism mattered…since DeMar has done great work in other areas including defending a constitutional mindframe & for combating dispenationsalism. This article has been adapted from an email so the flow is more personal in nature & I will sometimes use the pronoun “you” since I am addressing a specific individual.

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)

Was Athanasius Just a ‘Bitter Heretic Hunter’?

Sometimes when Christians take a strong stance in contending for the faith (Jude 1:3), especially against teachers & teachings that are clearly unchristian, they are accused of being motivated by "self-righteousness", "bitterness", "hate", or of being "heteric hunters".  One of the Church’s most staunch defenders of the faith was a man named Athanasius of Alexandria Egypt.
Athanasius lived in the 3rd-4th century & is known for his fight against one of the very first heresies within the Church.  This heresy was called Arianism after a man named Arius.  In summary, Arianism taught that Jesus was not one with the Father & that Jesus was not divine & that the Triune nature of God was incorrect.
Athanasius would occupy almost his entire adult life with combatting the teaching of Arianism.  My question is, does this mean Athanasius was merely a bitter, heretic hunter?

Army of 1000

The U.S. Army has a slogan, “an army of one” but recently a hyperpreterist referred to a single effort against them as “an army of 1000″ (Chuck Coty — hyperpreterist). This comment came about after administrators of the quasi-conservative hyperpreterist website began breaking their own stated policies not to mention the name of one of their detractors. But as I’ve said before, one characteristic of a cult is that it tries to shut down or ignore all outside critique, & most especially critiques from FORMER group members. They instead want to isolate the group (especially newer members) from anything that might call into question their views. Here is a quote from Coty, advocating that very isolation:

Why Hyperpreterism Can Never Be Systematic

When a premise, assertion or formula is put forth, the true way to test it is to push it to its conclusions. Systematically applying a premise will quickly reveal if the premise itself is flawed.
When it comes to hyperpreterism, it is built on 3 primary premises with 1 overarching premise.

PRIMARY PREMISES OF HYPERPRETERISM

1. That Jesus returned once & for all in the year AD70
2. That the resurrection of the believers happened in AD70
3. That the Judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in AD70

OVERARCHING PREMISE OF HYPERPRETERISM

• That for whatever reason, God for nearly 2000 years has been unable or unwilling to make sure that the Church has a basic & correct understanding of eschatology.

Is Anything Heresy to a Heretic?

This is an extremely important issue not only to me but to all readers of this blog since heresy doesn’t normally come knocking with a name badge, “Hey, I’m heresy”, but rather heresy sneaks into your mind, your heart, your theology.  And while you subscribe to a heresy, you may think it is not you that has a problem, but all the “close-minded” people that are trying to warn you about the heresy you are caught in. (heretics tend to think of other people as “close-minded” or too simple to understand the supposed great knowledge to which the heretic has attained).

How Someone Can be Hooked by Hyperpreterism

It is not a little matter to use the word “heresy”.  Sometimes it is thrown out against something that we simply do not like or do not understand.  But the Bible defines heresy as a teaching of doctrine which is contrary to the doctrines learned from Jesus & the apostles & thus a teaching that divides Christians from real Christianity. (Rom 16:17-18).  Heresy can quietly exist among otherwise “orthodox” Christians.  An early example of this is seen in how the Judaizers were considered “believers” & actually worked with other Christians. (Acts 15:5).  So you see, it is possible to be a “believer” & a heretic at the same time.  So why were the Judaizers tolerated among the Christians?  They were tolerated UNTIL they began to CAUSE DIVISION.  Once a heresy gets to the point that it divides Christians from correct teaching, it is time to part ways.  As a matter of fact, Paul was so strong on this point that in Gal 5:12 he wished that the Judaizers would “cut themselves all the way off” — depart from considering themselves “believers”.

RCM Live: A Parody Podcast

Welcome to another episode of RCM Live  (Really Conceited Men) with your hosts Jason Bragfield & Sam Frauds & their sidekick Mike Puppett.  This episode features more of the same as all the other episodes; Sam talking about himself & who & what he knows while Mike praises Sam & agrees with everything he says.
The guys take a few calls.  The first call is Chuck Cozy from the Hyperpreterist Whine website.  Chuck tries to tell the guys not to address their critics but fortunately Sam won’t listen to counsel from anyone & continues.
The next call is from Virg, the Emergent, postmodernist, relativist, theological-socialist that hates every thing traditional & is in the process of building the first hyperpreterist compound, constructed fittingly enough completely out of straw bales.  Sam interprets Virg’s comments for the listeners.
SPECIAL FEATURE:  As Sam takes his typical  unprofessional mid-show break, Jason wows the listeners with his rapping skills.
If you like previous episodes of RCM live, you’ll like this one..its more of the same.
NOTE: This is a parody of a typical hyperpreterist podcast.  Any resemblance with actual persons or organizations is ..uh… coincidental yeah.  They say imitation is the height of flattery, but in this case this parody is exposing the flattery of self common among hyperpreterist.  Enjoy!
http://thekingdomcome.com/rcmlive.mp3

Why Hyperpreterists Will Always Eventually Be Liberal

Hyperpreterism eats away at a person slowly.  At first they think it is merely a mild modification to only their eschatology.  Then as they become more immersed, they begin to realize it is a complete overhaul.  It is as the hyperpreterists claim themselves, a “paradigm shift”.  You AREN’T going to be able to be a hyperpreterist & just modify your eschatology & go on with all your other “ologies” in tact.  Were you a Calvinist before you were a hyperpreterist?  Not for long.  Were you a Pentecostal?  Not for long.  Did you previously hold to some form of holiness or moral compass? (not out of self-righteousness, but in honoring God for His grace)  Not for long.

Why Hyperpreterism is NOT the New Reformation

As a hyperpreterist I would often equate the hyperpreterist movement to the Reformation.  I mean, look hyperpreterism is challenging the status quo & the Reformers challenged the status quo too — see, perfect comparison eh?
The problem is that the Reformation was not as simple as “Roman Catholic Bad, Protestant good”.  There were other factors in play.  Factors either overlooked or unknown to hyperpreterists who attempt to equate themselves to the Reformation.  During the Reformation there was a 3rd group called the “radical reformers“.  The radical reformers didn’t just want to reform the Church — but they wanted to scrap everything that went before & start over.  They even called Martin Luther, “Dr. Easy-Chair” because they didn’t think he went far enough.

When Hyperpreterists Fight Hyperpreterists

We can write about the inconsistencies of hyperpreterism all we want but there is nothing as powerful as quoting one hyperpreterist faction’s comments against another hyperpreterist faction.  What follows are recent comments from a member of the liberal faction against the quasi-conservative faction.  This issue is over the liberal faction’s promotion of a “hyperpreterized” reading of the Genesis account (the quasi-conservatives, who inconsistently try to hold onto some amount of orthodoxy will not consistently apply their hyperpreterism — thus the fight).  Notice how this guy takes Sam “the presumed scholar” Frost to task for not addressing the issue but instead letting his underlings do the grunt work.

The So-called “Ministries” of Hyperpreterism

After a recent interaction with hyperpreterist Ward Fenley (a guy who’s influence in the “movement” has waned over the last few years so he does all he can to get noticed), I was reminded of the predatory practices of hyperpreterism.  So, I have decided to do an article about the typical behavior of so-called hyperpreterist “ministries”.

One of the first things you will notice about hyperpreterist “ministries” is that they aren’t really ministries at all, at least not in the traditional sense.  A traditional ministry typically has grown either as an extension of a church or group with a long history.  Hyperpreterist “ministries” are usually just one guy who decides to start a “ministry” & proclaims himself “president” of his newly found “ministry”.

How Did 2000 Years of Christians Miss it?

One question that always stumps hyperpreterists, even though they have tried to come up with answers is the question of how did 2000 years worth of Christians miss Jesus’ supposed 1st century return?  How did they miss the resurrection of the believers?  How did they miss the judgment of the wicked & righteous? — after all, no Christian immediately after the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple claimed the things hyperpreterists claim today.  Here are 4 ways hyperpreterists typically try to answer this question:

More Junk Theology From Hyperpreterists

One reason I have rejected hyperpreterism is that not only is it built on the false overarching premise that for whatever reason God was unable or unwilling for 2000 years to sustain within His Church a basic & correct understanding of eschatology — but I also rejected hyperpreterism because of after 15 years of interacting with flawed premises of most hyperpreterists, it became obvious that these guys are operating from a Proverbs 26:12 mindset.
An example of this came from a recent posting over on the former hot-spot website of hyperpreterism, Planet Preterist. A first time poster posted:

Beyond Creative Speculation: A Review of Hyperpreterist Creationism

Download MSWord version

Download Adobe PDF version

A chapter by chapter review of "Covenant Creationism", a hyperpreterist factional belief.

Is Hyper / Full Preterism Really That Dangerous?

Recently on a supposed Christian discussion forum where hyperpreterists are allowed to present themselves as Christians — a person asked these series of questions:

1. How does one’s idea of Preterism affect their life?
2. Why should Christians stay away from Preterism?
3. Will it affect their salvation? Are they not doing the works commanded by God by holding to this idea?

What follows is my answer to those important questions.

What About the Full / Hyper Preterist That Is Honestly Seeking

As I left the cult of hyperpreterism I wondered about the people who were not really part of the typical arrogant & egotistical group of the “movement”. Can we rescue these people? Can we have a civil discussion with them? While still confronting the typical arrogant & egostical hyperpreterist I sought out the reasonable kind.  I went to various message boards where hyperpreterists are known to frequent (you can find them lurking on almost any prophecy/eschatology forum where often they are given free rein because moderators don’t know what the hyperpreterists actually believe).

James White Calls Hyperpreterism Heresy

Surfing through the great collection of CONTRA-hyperpreterist materials that Dee Dee has collected over the years, I found an audio by James White where he CLEARLY identifies hyperpreterism as HERESY.  This is significant because many of the so-called “Reformed” & “conservative” hyperpreterists like to quote White on other things.  But even beyond that White says some significant things, that we on PreteristBlog have been saying — even though I’ve never listened to White on this topic until now.
White is interacting with a caller who asks about Luke 21:22 (a favorite proof-texts of hyperpreterists)

For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (NKJV)

The presumption by hyperpreterists is that ALL THINGS includes every prophecy in the Bible.  White encourages the caller to look at the entire sentence & context starting in verse 21 & on through verse 24.

Are You “Afraid” of Hyperpreterists?

Here we go again.  Hyperpreterism seems to be the master of false premises.  Recently on an up & coming hyperpreterist website one of their members posted the question “Why are Christian [discussion boards] Afraid of Preterism?” First off, this question has several false premises built into it.  One, the issue ISN’T Preterism — it is HYPERPRETERISM.  These hyperpreterists need to start getting their terminology & definitions correct.  Even one of their own used to go around claiming that the first step in discussing theology was to first define your terms.  Instead, these guys play loose with terms, making it look like their HYPERpreterism is the same as traditional preterism.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, they have been doing this for some time now.  Even the Wikipedia on Preterism is a collection of erroneous history & poor definition.

What Matt Slick from CARM says about Hyperpreterism

Words & phrases Matt Slick, the OWNER of CARM has used to describe hyperpreterism:

1. Idiocy
2. Blatantly denying Scriptural Truth
3. Like smoking heresy-weed
4. Not at home (clueless)
5. Totally incomprehensible
6. Incompetency or Agenda driven
7. Needs to slap sense into self
8. Dangerous HERESY
9. Twists Scripture
10. Really Bad News
11. Not God’s Word
12. Should be Distanced From by Christians
13. Blatantly False Teaching

CARM, according to the CARM website started in October of 1995  & is short for “Christian Apologetics Research Ministry”.

Sam Frost’s Frustrated Flood Theory

If you are following the wildly erroneous & speculation filled movement that is hyperpreterism, you will have noticed over the last few years that it has entered a new area of theological distortion.  Right before I left hyperpreterism, I warned the so-called “conservatives” in the movement that in the coming years the movement would be dominated by a new Creation/Flood theory proffered by two guys named Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn.  They call their theory, “Covenantal Creationism” & is basically a view that sees the biblical creation account as merely localized/tribalized/covenantalized — that is, to them Genesis isn’t really about the creation of the physical universe, the physical planet, the physical humans, physical plants & animals but really only about a symbolic or contractual creation.  They even claim Adam was not the first created human but only the first human created into a “covenant” with God. (see my refutation of “Coventantal Creationism”)

Are Hyperpreterists Going to Hell?

Today I had a brief exchange with a young man (age 23) who claims to have grown up in a hyperpreterist home & yet did not consider himself a Christian until about June 2008.  But the point isn’t when he did or didn’t claim to be a Christian, the point is that if he is a hyperpreterist then technically he STILL isn’t a Christian.  When I told him this he took it to mean I think he is destined for hell, though I never said such a thing.  It is not my place to determine that.

Hyperpreterist Train: Ego Express

Hyperpreterist leader/teacher Don Preston has been teaching his followers yet a new little phrase — no, not his signature “catch the power of this” phrase but the new phrase is designed to help hyperpreterists ignore the fact they are heretics.  The phrase is as follows:

“Don’t slow the train down to throw rocks at barking dogs”.

What Preston means by this is that the critics of hyperpreterism should be ignored & the “train” should just keep chugging along.  The problem is, this little phrase compares 2000 years worth of Christian witness as “dogs”. 

How to Behave Like a Cultist

Even while I was a hyperpreterist, I was shocked by the behavior of many of the high-profile hyperpreterists (the so-called leaders).  One hyperpreterist guy was known for creating anonymous websites trying to reveal his opponents personal information — so much so that he’d post a google map to the person’s house.
Another instance is where a hyperpreterist guy was caught RED-HANDED running what is called “vampire scripts” against his opponents website.  A vampire script is a little program designed to repeatedly ping the site every second in an attempt to overload & crash it.
Yet another instance is where a hyperpreterist guy would high-jack passwords (via his IT/computer background) & then pose as a legitimate user on a forum & trash his opponents, making them think it was not him.

Former Hyperpreterist Todd Dennis

Todd Dennis was perhaps the main progenitor of hyperpreterism on the Internet.  Starting in 1996, he had amassed the largest “archive” of preterist & hyperpreterist materials anywhere.  Many of the now popular hyperpreterist websites had to directly lift material from his website to jump start their own.
In 2006 Todd was one if not the first modern hyperpreterist to renounce that false teaching & instead of going away quietly like hyperpreterists tell us to do, Todd seeks to undo some of the damage he directly & indirectly caused in the lives of others.

I want to here, publicly apologize & ask Todd forgiveness for so rudely opposing him while I was STILL a hyperpreterist.  To use the vernacular of the 20-30 something crowd associated with the hyperpreterist movement, I want to say, “Todd is one brave dude!” He has had to endure (sometimes alone, except for Christ), the barbs of former hyperpreterist friends who have done everything from claim he is suffering from emotional problems to saying the only reason he left hyperpreterism is due to a personal issue.  They don’t seem to want to realize that people can & do leave the cult because they realize it is a cult.

How the Hyperpreterists High Jacked Wikipedia

For those unaware, Wikipedia is an online “open-source” encyclopedia.  Open-source means that almost anyone can contribute & edit.   The first history log listed for the Wikipedia presentation of “Preterism“ appears to be Sept 28, 2001 but I believe the entry was started even before that.  Some background on how this entry has evolved goes as follows (& Dee Dee can fill in the blanks since she was instrumental in the early days).

I believe the entry was initially dominated by the Max King faction of hyperpreterism, now known as the “Transmillennials(tm)” (yes they trademarked the term).  Max King is often considered the founder of the modern hyperpreterist movement.  From the biographical book called “Give Me This Mountain” written by Tim King, Max King’s son, comes this quote:

Preterism and Emergent Eschatology

Andrew Perriman of opensourcetheology.net was recently interviewed by a hyperpreterist about Andrew’s views on eschatology (”endtimes”).  During the interview it became apparent that the interviewer was constantly trying to associate Andrew’s views with his own.  By the end of the interview, Andrew appeared to be a little annoyed with the interviewer’s constant appeal to his own sectarian views.
The interviewer holds a belief which is commonly called, “Hyper-Preterism” — it is called hyper not as a derogatory term but as a technical & grammatically accurate term since “hyper” is often used in theology & sciences to indicate a position that goes beyond the intent & scope of the original — such as “Hyper-Calvinism” or “Hyper-Inflation”.
Thus, we should begin our inquiry with what Preterism is in its original form.  First off, Preterism as a term is of fairly recent usage, but as a concept it is as old as Christian interpretation (source) since most of Christianity has held to the historic & original form.

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.

The Hyperpreterist Movement — 2009 & Beyond

With the change of the new year, I thought it would be fun to re-cap & project the year for hyperpreterism based on its short historical patterns.

First, let’s re-cap from the 1970s to present.

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.

Delayed Reaction: A Hyperpreterist Sees the Light

Anyone who has dealt with hyperpreterists knows that what they are  advocating ISN’T just a “minor theology disagreement”, nor is it a “non-essential”, nor is it just about eschatology.  Operating under the hyperpreterist rubric (can I say “creed”), will cause a person to begin to alter all sorts of things they perhaps didn’t set out to change.  After all, they call it a “paradigm shift”.  One such major change is that hyperpreterists MUST reconsider the Creation & Flood accounts.  Holding to the TRADITIONAL beliefs of those accounts is sooooo…well so “old school” or “old magisterium” (hyperpreterist code for “we want to invent something new & chuck the old stuff”).  Any hyperpreterist, be he some newbie or some “leader” with M.A.R. at the end of his name is NOT really fulfilling the mandate of hyperpreterism if they resist questioning (or rather “doubting”) the TRADITIONAL view of the Creation & Flood accounts.
Anyway, a faction of the hyperpreterists has been advocating a “localized” Creation & Flood where they claim it was merely the creation of the “covenant people” — the Jews before they were called Jews & not the creation of the physical planet.  They claim that Adam WASN’T the first created human being but merely the first human with which God entered into a covenant.  So, this view is called “Covenant Creationism”.

Tyler Durdens of Theology: Project Mayhem

In the cult-following movie called Fight Club, its main character ends up being a guy with a split personality where his more sensible side makes rational, “normal” decisions & his anarchist side makes irrational, abnormal decisions to the point of advocating blowing up buildings in a scheme he calls “Project Mayhem”.
Although Hyperpreterists often try to equate themselves with being modern day Martin Luthers & Reformers, they are probably better equated as a sort of “Tyler Durdens” (the chaotic side of the character in the Fight Club), after all at its root, hyperpreterism is anti-establishment, anti-institutional, anti-traditional — everything Tyler Durden was about.

Eye for an Eye Irony

There has been a fairly large behind the scenes battle going on between the hyperpreterists & the former-hyperpreterists.  In this battle, the hyperpreterists are doing as they are often known to do…attacking the PERSON & claiming they are justified in doing so because they claim they are just doing what has been done to them.  There is a strange irony that a group that claims “the Law has been done away with” (often even for those who have not professed Christ), would employ a sort of “eye for an eye” tactic.  But the real problem is that it ISN’T an “eye for an eye”.

An Invitation to “Neo-Preterists”

For the many years that I have interacted with “neo-preterists*“ while I was within the movement & even more so since I left the movement, I began to notice there are at least three kinds of people within the movement.  I will outline the three different kinds of “mindsets” I have observed in the movement & then detail a little bit more about each.  I then want to offer an invitation to one of these groups.  I really don’t have a desire to interact with the other two kinds as I find it futile.

An Exercise in Obfuscation: Jason Bradfield’s “Logic”

Recently Dee Dee spoke of a situation where a hyperpreterist named Mike Bennett sent out an email comparing her picture to a picture of the Whore of Babylon.  When this monstrous act was exposed, the hyperpreterists’ went into damage control mode.  Another hyperpreterist known for his propensity to ignore the obvious & to defend defenseless acts came to Bennett’s rescue.  Jason Bradfield, said that we couldn’t infer anything from the picture.  Bradfield went on to LIE about the context of the email — as Bradfield claimed there was NO TEXT with the pictures.  In fact the text even further showed that the intent was to compare Dee Dee (another man’s wife) to a whore. 

Why Hyperpreterists Can’t Use the Bible

In interactions with hyperpreterists, one of the first claims they make is that they are just reading the Bible for what it says.  First, we must ask then why 2000 years worth of Christians who have read that same Bible, some people even in the original languages & some people who had ONLY the Bible as reading material — why didn’t these people conclude anything like what Hyperpreterists claim they see in the Bible?
But even BEFORE we get to that question we must ask another question of the hyperpreterists:

WHAT IS THE BIBLE?

I mean, why 66 books & no more or no less?  Who decided this?  Why does the hyperpreterist just accept it?  You’d think that since hyperpreterism MUST claim 2000 years of Christian interpretation has been wrong that the hyperpreterist would first take a look at the Bible those 2000 years of Christians have been reading.  Maybe those supposedly dumb Christians messed up there too eh?

The Challenged Challenge: Answering Jason Bradfield

The habitual liar & hyperpreterist Jason Bradfield has recently posted a YouTube video to “challenge” William Hill, the host of Covenant Radio (CR) on Hill’s posting of a statement clarifying CR’s position on hyperpreterism.
Now, Jason starts his video by claiming that the former CR host, Jeff McCormack was NOT a hyperpreterist — McCormack was CERTAINLY a hyperpreterist & there is documentation in Jeff’s own words that declare it.  So, Jason starts off either ignorant of the truth OR once again lying.

The Hyperpreterist Mind

For a while now, I’ve been in communication with several people who have been looking into hyperpreterism.  Hyperpreterism looks attractive to some people because of years & years of toiling within the falsehood of “Left Behindism”.  Hyperpreterism tries to supplant itself into the position that is rightly that of historic Christianity — that is, historic Christianity has NEVER been part of the fatalistic “Left Behind” mentality.  Historic Christianity has always advocated a victorious, triumphant mentality.  As we are more than conquerors in Christ…even now. (Romans 8:37)
What hyperpreterism does to a person more than anything else destructive that it does, is to disconnect a person from sound reason.  It calls each individual to redefine everything from words to concepts until the person becomes “wise in their own eyes”. (Proverbs 26:12)
An example of this is seen in a recent discussion upon a question posed by a member of a hyperpreterist community site.  The question was

Is cussing wrong and is God offended by words that our culture deem vulgar? It’s assumed wrong in Christianity, but I wonder if anyone has studied this out in the bible?

Let’s look at some of the answers.

An Exegetical Interaction with Hyperpreterism #1

Soon after I left the Hyperpreterist Movement in late 2007, many hyperpreterists leaders started saying I had no “exegetical” case for rejecting hyperpreterism.  They gave all kinds of wild speculations as to why I left though I told them over & over that my reasons were both exegetical & practical (practical in that hyperpreterism in consistent practice leads to corrupt character because it unhinges a person from the continuity of Christian morality by claiming much of it is “only a 1st-century thing”  — see link).
I have purposely been focusing on the aspect that caused me to be a hyperpreterist for 15 years — which is an erroneous understanding of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone).  Many modern Evangelicals think Sola Scriptura means, “just me & my Bible & my own interpretation”.  That is NOT what Sola Scriptura means — that concept is actually SOLO Scriptura where the person exchanges the Pope in Rome for the pope in the mirror. 

All Offices Have Ceased: A Consistent Hyperpreterism

Early on in the hyperpreterism movement as they were in search of a label to call their new religion they toyed with labels like “Covenant Eschatology”, “Fulfilled Eschatology”, & “Consistent Preterism”.  They claimed to be “more consistent” than the so-called “Partial-Preterists” (ie. historic Preterists).
Well, when hyperpreterism is REALLY applied in a consistent manner, a person MUST arrive at things like universalism as a conclusion (all are saved); since under hyperpreterism, the judgment has happened, the devil is gone, there is no more condemnation & on & on. 

Interview on Covenant Radio

William Hill, host of the Internet radio show called “Covenant Radio” interviewed me (Roderick Edwards) on the subject of hyperpreterism.  It was an hour & 8 minute show wherein we covered some background history, overarching premises, & typical proof-texts for hyperpreterism along with naming some names of those who promote/teach hyperpreterism.
I think, all in all it was a broad-hitting show that gives the listener a good starting point on understanding why hyperpreterism is destructive to a Christian faith.

After Show Comments From an Unlikely Source

On April 15, 2009 I did a podcast on the Covenant Radio Internet show & expect to receive perhaps a few typical vague references to it from some hyperpreterists but you can imagine my amazement when none other than hyperpreterist Jason Bradfield — the same guy who has been instructing members of his site that it’s best that they not interact with me ANYWHERE & the same guy who has a policy on his site that if anyone even mentions my name in a post, that post will be “deleted with no questions asked” (ref) — that same Jason Bradfield decided to do a 38 point interaction with the podcast.  I just want to say thanks to Jason & to his members I’d ask if they think it is even in the slightest hypocritical of him but oh well, here we go.  I’ll post Jason’s quoted point & then respond after.  On the site where he posted this, he is known as “kingneb”.  The only reason I don’t give the site is because the site is relatively free from hyperpreterist influence & thus it is not suffering much disruption & division so I don’t want to encourage more hyperpreterist to go there.

From Bad to Worse: Hyperpreterism's coC Origins

Worse than anything else the coC radical, SOLO scriptura/private interpretation, Restorationist mentality has given birth to (see ref), the coC denomination gave rise to modern hyperpreterism via one of its “ministers” – Max King.
Don’t believe me???? Want to say I’m making it up??? Want to claim I’m just “smearing & slandering”??? Let’s see what Max King himself says about it:

Exegesis of Matthew 16

Hyperpreterists often quote Mt 16:27-28 as proof-texts for hyperpreterism.  They claim that anyone who cannot see those texts as pointing to Jesus’ Second Coming are “dishonest” yet 2000 years of Christian interpretation of Mt 16:27-28 has not produced anything like hyperpreterism.  In the article that follows, I’d like to exegete ALL of Mt 16, verse-by-verse.

Dear Hyperpreterist Readers...

With the recent lockdown of the SGP-hyperpreterist compound, the relegating of hyperpreterists to a specific section of CARM forums, & the general “see-you-coming” tone of most Christian forums I know many hyperpreterists are just iching for any interaction.  Since most of you are newer to the hyperpreterist movement, you really don’t know anything about the history of the movement & its leaders…nor do you seem to care.  But I did want to help you out so that you can STOP REPEATING THE FALSEHOODS about Christians & I want to help you appear to be more informed:

Christ in All His Glory: Messianic Vindication

After the publication of an exegetical article regarding Matthew 16:27 on the website called, Theology Today (ref) a respondent asked some very good follow up questions which I would like to answer in this current article.

The contention of the former article is that Matthew 16:27 pertains to Christ’s vindication rather than to any sort of future “Second Coming”.  The article was partially written as a refutation to an heretical group called “Hyper-Preterism” (ref) which claims all major eschatological events occurred in the first-century or more specifically at the year AD70.  The article was partially written to reiterate the historic Christian interpretation of Matthew 16:27, not to introduce some new or personal interpretation. 

In the course of the article I made these statements in especial contrast to how even some non-heretical people may claim, “Jesus came back in judgment in AD70, but there is yet a final future return”:

The only “coming” of Jesus in the first-century was His “coming on/in/with the clouds” in vindication & glorification before the Throne of God. Further, 2 Thes 1:7 & Rev 1:7 talk about this vindication, not only of Jesus but of those who took up their cross & followed Him.”

In response to these statements, a commenter, Adam from Minneapolis asked:

Could you clarify the last two sentences in the above quote? Were you referring to Matthew 24:30, i.e. by indicating that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in AD 70? Also are you confirming that 2 Thessalonians 1:7 and Revelation 1:7 were fulfilled in AD 70?… The reason I’m asking these questions is that I used to be Pre-Trib, and then switched to a Post-Trib position a few years ago. I had believed that the Matthew 24 passage is one of numerous passages that validates the Post-Tribulation position. Now it’s really throwing me for a loop to consider that Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation events may have been fulfilled in AD 70 (meaning there is no future 7-year tribulation period which must precede Christ’s Second Coming). (ref)

Before reading any further, for context I encourage the reader to read the initial article & my short commentary of the entire chapter 16 of Matthew found here. 

THE ANSWER

The answer to the gentleman’s first question is that Matt 16 & indeed most of the N.T. references to Jesus “coming in the clouds” pertains to the big question of the time regarding Jesus; “Who do men say I am?” (Mk 8:27)

I think we Christians often take it for granted that presently even non-believers could tell you who Jesus claimed to be, but in His day there was much speculation (Mk 8:28).  Further, the Jewish officials had a power interest in relegating Jesus to some minor role, maybe as a prophet but certainly not as the Messiah.

The initial context of Matthew 16 is the Jewish officials questioning Jesus’ legitimacy:

Then the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing Him asked that He would show them a sign from heaven. (Mt 16:1)

They weren’t looking for a sign of Jesus’ return; since they didn’t even yet believe He is the Messiah.  They wanted to know if He was really the Messiah He claimed to be.  We see them asking (or rather demanding an answer from) Jesus this question again in John 10:24 –

Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” (Joh 10:24)

It is important to see that the pressing question of Jesus’ day WASN’T; “When is the Messiah coming back?” Rather, it was “Who is this Jesus fellow?” Thus much of the N.T. relates to answering that question.

As for answering the question of Adam from Minneapolis, Matthew 24:30 reads:

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Mt 24:30)

The quick answer is, yes, this pertains to Jesus’ glorification & vindication as the Messiah He claimed to be.  It pertains to Dan 7:13 and it pertains to Mt 16:27-28 as well as to verses like Mt 26:64.  Jesus was about to ANSWER the question of His Messiah-ship in a very, very bold and powerful way.

THE TRIBULATION

Perhaps the meat of the question of Adam from Minneapolis concerns the tribulation referenced in Mt 24:29:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Mt 24:29)

Is this passage pertaining to the so-called “Great Tribulation” often considered to occur during the culmination of the world or is it something else?  Let us first examine a few commentaries to see how historic Christianity has interpreted the passage, especially before the advent of “Left-Behindism” (ref).

Baptist Theologian John Gill Commentary on Mt 24:29

“Immediately after the tribulation of those days,…. That is, immediately after the distress the Jews would be in through the siege of Jerusalem, and the calamities attending it; just upon the destruction of that city, and the temple in it, with the whole nation of the Jews, shall the following things come to pass; and therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment… therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple.” (ref)

Presbyterian Theologian John Lightfoot Commentary on Mt 24:29

“That is, the Jewish heaven shall perish, and the sun and moon of its glory and happiness shall be darkened, and brought to nothing. The sun is the religion of the [Jewish] church; the moon is the [Jewish] government of the state; and the stars are the judges and doctors of both.” (ref)

Reformed Theologian John Calvin Commentary on Mt 24:29

“Christ comes now to speak of the full manifestation of his kingdom, about which he was at first interrogated by the disciples, and promises that, after they have been tried by so many distressing events, the redemption will arrive in due time… The tribulation of those days is improperly interpreted by some commentators to mean the destruction of Jerusalem; for, on the contrary, it is a general recapitulation (ἀνακεφαλαίωσις) of all the evils of which Christ had previously spoken. To encourage his followers to patience, he employs this argument, that the tribulations will at length have a happy and joyful result.” (ref)

So, as the reader can see the idea that the tribulation spoken of in Mt 24:29 pertains primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem and or the troubles that would come upon the Christians at the time, is not my own personal interpretation.  However, we also see a glimpse of an objection.  Calvin posits that the tribulation referenced is general distress Christians will always endure until the culmination yet to a “happy and joyful result”.  None of these commentators speak of it as a single event at the culmination.  To be sure, we can cite commentaries that do see Mt 24:29 as a Great Tribulation at the “end of time”, but my purpose was to show that this propositional interpretation is neither new nor the proprietary of cultic groups such as the hyperpreterists which imply they are some of the first to advocate it.  This view has historic continuity within the community of the saints and should not be allowed to be overtaken by heretical groups.

Further, as to the question of whether 2 Thes 1:7 and Rev 1:7 pertain to the same thing as Christ’s glorification and vindication as articulated in the previous article; the simple answer is, Yes!  That is the overarching theme of Jesus’ first appearance – His claim and revelation as the Messiah.

The discussion of the various tribulation positions is outside the scope of this response and will require another article.  But might I leave the readers with this consideration that ALL views seeing some future catastrophic single tribulation may need to be reexamined, if nothing else so that the believers may broaden their eschatological framework to be based on more than just a pre, mid, or post tribulation.

More Hyperpreterist Thuggery: The Vindictive Jason Bradfield

Perhaps a new reader might wonder why PreteristBlog spends time mentioning the actions of hyperpreterists?  Perhaps a new reader might think, “Just deal with the position”.  But what must be realized is that character matters.  I get so sick of hearing hyperpreterists say things like, “The people who know me, know my heart…” as if they are different in person than they are in their online communications.  I understand that some people are different from online to in-person, but it should not be so with people claiming to be Christians.  It should be a WYSIWYG.  If we can’t determine a person’s “heart” via 5+ years of their written expression, then 1) they are either a poor communicator or 2) they are two-faced/double-minded. (James 1:8)  Either, way such a person would have no business being a teacher/leader & certainly NEVER any sort of “pastor”.

Being Offended By Everything

While I was a fundamentalist Christian, I experienced & at times participated in the activity of being offended by almost everything.  They would often be offended by the length of someones hair, or if a woman wore slacks, or other such things that may or may not have some biblical principle behind it.

Recently, we at PretBlog have experienced some hyperpreterists that have been going on & on about how highly offended they are about this or that.  They are offended that someone said they are glad they are not their spouse — hey, sometimes I feel sorry for my own spouse since I’m a short geeky guy who can’t dance but you don’t see me get all offended.  These same hyperpreterists even make irrational assumptions at words, such as “whale” & “pig” & get offended because they think someone is talking about their weight.  They are constantly getting offended & demanding apologies for their hurt feelings.  But you know what I get REALLY offended by?  I get offended when people who claim to be Christians get more offended by common expressions & by their own irrational assumptions than by how these same people berate 2000 years worth of Christianity.

Bagworms And Blogs

Besides theology, I enjoy a nice relaxing time doing gardening in my yard (see here).  Many articles have been spawned as I take time to meditate & reflect while griming in the soil to plant or when plucking some weeds.
Last night I took some time to carefully remove bagworms from an evergreen/pine tree.  Bagworms attach themselves to the host tree, looking very much like pine cones.  A casual observer may think the bagworms belong to the tree when actually they are parasites that are destroying the tree one branch at a time.  It starts with just one lone bag that eventually breaks open with over 1000 larvae in each bag.  In time, an entire evergreen would be destroyed by what at first seemed innocent enough.
Heresies are like bagworms.  They may look like they are part of the tree.  Casual observers may even get upset to see someone removing bagworms from a tree, as if they suppose a person is pulling pine cones.

Reducing The Resurrection: Hyperpreterist Logic in Action

We often talk about how “reductionist” hyperpreterists can be.  What we mean by this is that they tend to minimize majors or reduce things by absurdities.  We have seen how they do this with things like Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus about the need to be “born again”.  They will often say this discussion was only concerning the need for the Old Covenant people to be “reborn” in the the New Covenant people.  It supposedly has nothing to do with individuals needs today.
Hyperpreterists are probably the most reductionist when it comes to the issue of the resurrection.  This is evident especially in how they will claim the resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70 & only in a spiritualized sense YET they will quote John 11:25

Papal Infallibility Had Its Origins In Hyperpreterist Mentality

Well if that title doesn’t get attention I don’t know what will.  But I didn’t use it just for shock value nor do I think it misrepresents hyperpreterism.
I have been in the process of reviewing a book by Keith Mathison called, The Shape of Sola Scriptura.  I am reviewing this book for a couple of reasons.

1. I want to understand more about the concepts of Sola Scriptura, since it was my misunderstanding of that concept that allowed me to be duped into hyperpreterism & remain there for 15 years. I also believe most, if not all hyperpreterists suffer from an incorrect concept of Sola Scriptura — which comes out more as private interpretation.
2. I want to eventually do a verse-by-verse commentary of the Bible (perhaps starting this June) & want to start by understanding how to read the Bible.  For so long, people on all sides have said, “We are just saying what the Bible says”, yet then the real issue is who can say what the Bible says?  Applying some convoluted “logic” or favorite “hermeneutic” isn’t enough.  It is no wonder we have over 38,000 denominations — a fact hyperpreterists often use to claim all of the Church is wrong.  There MUST be a more God-honoring way to approach the Bible than to just read a text & claim your interpretation is the best if not the only interpretation.  I have to believe a Sovereign God has left us with a better method, otherwise each man WILL “lean on his own understanding” & claim it is as good as the next man’s.

Big Fish, Little Pond: Hyperpreterism’s Leaders

When it comes to the “leaders” of Hyperpreterism, you may wonder why some of them, who otherwise seem like bright individuals — why do they remain within the hyperpreterist movement? Sure, we can understand why such a movement might be appealing to some unemployed, spouseless person with no life.  And sure we might understand why it might be a fun place to hang out if the person admits to constantly being confused & is seeking other people just as confused as they are to make them feel better.  But what about the person who seems fairly stable, perhaps had been a real Christian for many years, maybe even had some seminary training?  After a while, don’t you think this person would see what a sham hyperpreterism really is?  If nothing else, if they were honest they’d have to admit that whatever hyperpreterism is, it isn’t historically Christian.  Maybe they do admit this to themselves privately.  So, there must be more to it.

What To Do When Preterism Comes To Your Church: For Pastors & Elders

Some things that are brought into a congregation via new attendees or members can be addressed easy enough.  Some doctrines are even within acceptable toleration within historic Christianity, but what happens when a belief comes in that is so aberrant, so out of sync with the unified doctrines of historic Christianity that it causes disruption to the congregation?
DOWNLOAD AS A TRACT
MS WORD or PDF <== New versions

Hyperpreterism & The Perseverance of the Saints

Ever since I left the hyperpreterist movement in 2007, I hear some hyperpreterist ridicule, “I thought Roderick claimed to be a Calvinist?  How then does he claim hyperpreterism is not Christian yet claims he was a Christian while in hyperpreterism?  Isn’t that against the Calvinist doctrine of ‘the perseverance of the saints’?”
The problem is, most of the hyperpreterists asking this insincere question (insincere because they don’t really want an answer — they just think it is a good dig), but the problem is many of them are non-Reformed, or worse yet, “restorationist church of christ” people asking this question.  Therefore, they don’t even understand what the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is about.  I am a bit surprised that the so-called “Sov Grace” hyperpreterists never seem to correct these people, but hey, the love of the movement is more important than truth.

New ‘Full Preterists’ (Part 1) — Not a Minor Change Of Eschatology

Whether you entered into the “full preterist” (FP) movement by reading material from FP writers or you came to it by reading the Bible in a vacuum (uninfluenced by historic Christian interpretation), one thing is for certain, there would have been a radical change in your theology. It may have happened slowly or suddenly but the change is dramatic. Subscribing to the FP view is not like switching from one millennial view to another. As a matter of fact, FP’s who have been in the movement for a while will tell you that adopting the FP view is a radical “paradigm shift”.

New ‘Full Preterists’ (Part 2) — The End of the Beginning

It may seem odd to claim that an eschatology, which is supposed to be about the “end times” would affect the things of the beginning; such as the Creation Account.  But the concepts of ‘full preterism’ are so pervasive that eventually everything is affected.
During the early years of the ‘full preterist’ movement there was mainly discussion about the so-called “time texts” & a redefinition of “covenant”. But eventually ‘full preterism’ will touch every “ology” beyond eschatology.
Although not all ‘full preterists’ YET consider how their belief affects all their other beliefs, over the last 10 years many within the movement have been trying to “consistently” apply their “paradigm shift” to everything else.  This has caused some to become universalistic in their conclusions, see no one condemned after AD70 or to another degree, some have embraced anihilationism, since their liberalism can’t bear to imagine a God that “eternally tortures” people.

Kenneth Gentry on Hyperpreterism

An April 13,2009 — 54 minute audio discussion between Dr. Kenneth Gentry & Jerry Johnson (president of Nicenecouncil.com).  Gentry explains that hyperpreterism is a reaction to the error of “Left Behind” dispensationalism.  However, I believe Gentry aids hyperpreterism when he claims the AD70 event was a “metaphorical coming of Christ”.  Rather, it was the Landowner taking vengeance on behalf of the Son & to what the wicked vinedressers had done (Matthew 21:33-45).  To say Jesus came back in AD70 misses what Jesus was saying in those verses & as I said, only leads a person to either adopt hyperpreterism or point out that even so-called “partial-preterism” is just as heretical as hyperpreterism, since it would have Jesus coming 3 times.

Personal Versus Theological

In the public realm, especially in politics we often see people trying to compartmentalize their lives.  The height of this is perhaps when former U.S. President Bill Clinton tried to claim his in-office affair was a “private life” issue.  This kind of thinking ought not be part of the Christian mindset.  We are NOT to be one person in private & another in public.  A person who has an extensive writing presence, when scrutinized for how they apply their stated principles to their own life, should not try to claim this compartmentalization as if you “got to know” them personally, you would see them differently.  They should not attempt to claim they are one person in their writing & another in their so-called private/personal life.

New ‘Full Preterists’ (Part 3) — Effects of the Fall

Although new ‘full preterists’ are told or think that they are merely modifying their eschatological perspective, it soon becomes apparent that the radical alteration of their belief system actually begins with what happened in Genesis.
Since hyperpreterism claims a spiritual fulfillment of Jesus’ return, they claim Jesus was restoring what was lost in Genesis — namely, they will claim the effect of sin & the Fall was primarily if not completely a “covenantal” fall & therefore Jesus was merely restoring mankind to “covenantal” union with God.  That is to say, hyperpreterism mainly advocates that the Fall was NOT about Adam dying physically, thus the restoration by Jesus is also NOT about physical restoration.  This is why hyperpreterism MUST discount a physical resurrection of the believers.

Why I Appeal to ‘Historic Christianity’

When I appeal to historic Christianity, I do so in the belief that God is sovereign. That His plans & decrees come to fruition. That the Holy Spirit actually has been guiding the Church even through what appears to be times of corruption (Gnosticism, Arianism, Papalism,Dispensationalism, Emergentism). The gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. Again, if the community of saints has been being tossed to & fro since day one & it is up to us UNinspired people to grope around & hope we can put the pieces together better than past Christians — then brothers & sisters, get ready to fall into diverse errors.

The Bible is our prime source, but overarching that is the belief that God is Sovereign & has been effectively able to maintain the most basic elements of truth within the community of saints. Failing that, then even the people who claim “Bible Alone” are without hope — because then we could & should apply their notion of God’s incapacity to even the Bible — meaning, if God has not maintained the most basic truth within the Church, then maybe even the Bible we have is corrupted. Why 66 books & no more or no less??? Maybe those “fallible” men somehow withheld or added to the canon we have now. Where does it end?????

Don Preston's Complaint

Hyperpreterism’s main focus within Christian circles is their effort to be seen as valid.  Even when I was part of the hyperpreterist movement, I recall the many discussions hyperpreterists would have about the hope that one day, some “big name” would embrace hyperpreterism & then the movement would be launched into the mainstream.  Well, that sentiment is still alive & well in the movement & the latest exampe of it comes from hyperpreterist debate-champion, Don Preston.
Recently, Bill Hill of the podcast program, “Covenant Radio” announced that he plans to do a “round-table discussion” about hyperpreterism (see ref), which would include Dr. Kenneth Gentry & Whitefield Theological Seminary President, Dr. Kenneth Talbot & an unnamed third participant.

Navigating the Factions of Hyperpreterism

When someone first encounters hyperpreterism, one of the first things they experience is that the “movement” is highly factionalized.  There seems to be no unified expression of hyperpreterism, yet four things that identify a person as a hyperpreterist are:
BASIC HYPERPRETERIST BELIEFS

1. Belief that Jesus came back once and for all in the first-century
2. Belief that the resurrection of the believers happened in the first-century
3. Belief that the judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the first-century
4. Belief that there will be no culmination/conclusion of the physical planet

Now, a person need not believe all of these points to be considered a hyperpreterist, though the more of the points they believe the more “consistent” they will be. Over-arching these beliefs, ALL hyperpreterists, whether they admit it or not MUST believe God/Jesus/the apostles/the Holy Spirit were unable or unwilling to maintain among the Church even a most basic correct understanding of God’s eschatological plan. 

SGP Admins Get REALLY “Spanked”

After some of the elites of the hyperpreterist site, SGP read my epistemological discussion with Dr. Ken Talbot (ref), they concluded I was “spanked” by Dr. Talbot. They accused me of not being a “presuppositionalist”. Some even claimed I am an “evidentialist” — apparently having no idea about the difference.
There were a few problems with their conclusions, one is that I wasn’t really presenting anything different than what has come to be known as “Van Tilian” presuppositionalism.  And as I pointed out, was obviously the same kind of presuppositionalism advocated by Calvin, B.B. Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, Francis Schaeffer & in more modern times by Greg Bahnsen, R.J. Rushdoony, K. Scott Oliphint, John M. Frame, Kenneth Gentry & others.

Destroying Error Completely

In the fight against heresies, there is a historical pattern.  For example, when Athanasius fought against the Arian heresy, he was sometimes accused of “mistreating the Arians”.  The struggle against the heresy of Arianism must have been frustrating for Athanasius, for there were times it looked like the Church was ready to adopt the Arian views.  But Athanasius stuck with it, even when his detractors would no doubt paint him as a lone “heretic hunter”.  As a matter of fact, Athanasius’  50+ year fight against Arianism is often depicted as “Contra Mundum” (against the world) because at times it seemed like it was just Athanasius against the world — not because he was expressing something new but because some of the most vocal voices were drowning out the truth that Christians had always believed (that Jesus is one with God, deity).

Another Hyperpreterist Returns to Christianity…sort of

It takes a lot of guts to leave a cult.  The intimidation is far greater than you can imagine.  Once a person commits themselves to a heresy or a cult, they become completely entangled in it.  They begin to identify themselves as the “persecuted” & therefore the “fellowship” of the group is everything to them — since historic Christianity will typically have nothing to do with them while they are within the heresy/cult.  So, leaving such a situation takes a very, very courageous step.
I remember when Dorothy Anderson first left the hyperpreterist movement (ref).  When I heard about it, I purposely kept my distance.  I wanted her to realize she left the movement, not because I or anyone else talked her into leaving but because she realized it was error. I also was very concerned that if I associated too quickly with Dorothy, that the hyperpreterists would simply paint her as a “Roderick clone”.  Well, even with all that consideration, some hateful hyperpreterists, like Mike Sullivan STILL threw hateful comments towards Dorothy:

Dictating Discussion By Defining Definitions

Whether in politics or theology, whomever determines the definitions of terms, dictates the direction of discussion.  We see this in politics how one group is labeled; “pro-choice” whereas the other is labeled “anti-abortion”.  One engenders positive thoughts of freedom & rights whereas the other engenders negative thoughts of restriction, opposition, perhaps even hateful motivation.  The same can be seen in issues like homosexuality, where one side is considered to be asking for “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “equality” whereas the other side is portrayed as “phobic”, “bigoted”, & “discriminatory”.
This attempt to dictate the direction of discussion by determining definitions is no less at work within the Hyperpreterist Movement.  For a long time, hyperpreterists have been trying to paint a dichotomy of “Preterists vs Futurists” but the distinction is patently incorrect.  There really is no such thing as a “Futurist”, though unfortunately some otherwise orthodox speakers/writers have all but acquiesced to the hyperpreterist effort — even allowing themselves to be described as “futurist” or even “partial-preterist”.  The truth is, if “preterite” simply means “past” (ref), then ALL Christians are “preteristic” since NO Christian believes all N.T. prophecies are yet future.  Further, there was NEVER really such a school of theology called “Preterist” or “Futurist” — these are artificially & specifically defined terms to create the level playing field hyperpreterists so desperately seek.

Historic Christianity Versus Creeds

For awhile now I have been advocating against hyperpreterism by appealing to “historic Christianity”.  Many of the hyperpreterists assume that when I say “historic Christianity”, I really just mean the creeds.  Although it’s interesting that I hardly ever cite any specific creed.  Some hyperpreterists, have even taken to calling Christians; “hyper-creedalists”.  Again, these Christians hardly ever reference specific creeds.
So, what do we mean when we appeal to historic Christianity?  Do we really just mean the creeds?  No.    Rather, the following analogy may be helpful to clarify this issue.

Sam Frost Gets 'Spanked' By Kelly Birks

Well, here we go. The hyperpreterists have been using anyone they can to validate themselves. If anyone throws them a bone, they are romp & ready to chase after it. When there was a public disagreement on epistemology between Dr. Kenneth Talbot & myself, the hyperpreterists were there slobbering to be the first to claim I was “spanked” by Dr. Talbot, although I think Dr. Talbot would admit many fine Reformed folks have come down on either side of the epistemological argument. However, the hyperpreterists are out in the dogpatch by themselves.
Recently, hyperpreterist “leader” Sam Frost has been experiencing some resistance to his pandere’ modus operand…from his OWN fellow hyperpreterists none-the-least.
Do I get to puff up & claim that Sam Frost was “spanked” by his fellow hyperpreterist, Kelly Birks? Or maybe I should make a video…or a whole string of videos. Can I borrow your mac Jason?
A couple of quotes from Birks:

Liberal And Always Liberalizing

Liberal and always liberalizing should perhaps be the motto of the hyperpreterist movement.  When Mike Bennett and company first started their hyperpreterist SGP website as a direct alternative to the liberal Planet Preterist website of Virgil Vaduva, the admins of SGP specifically wanted to avoid the junk-theology that was rampant on Planet Preterist.  SGP even says SGP is for “well tested theology”.  Yet, I once had a rare civil email discussion with Bennett and I told him no matter how much they attempt to ban the liberals from SGP, all hyperpreterist community sites always end up liberal — why? because hyperpreterism itself is NOT “well tested theology”.  Hyperpreterism attracts and coddles arm-chair wannabe “theologians”.  It celebrates private interpretation and encourages “new” and “fresh” perspectives.

Former hyperpreterist, Dorothy Anderson is known for the phrase that hyperpreterists tend to cozy up to every “whore of doctrine” and SGP is beginning to really reflect that.