Saturday, November 27, 2010

The Martin Luther of Hyperpreterism: Rivers Responds

Hyperpreterism (sometimes called Full Preterism) is a theological perspective and movement that is considered to have began in the 1970s after the rogue "church of Christ" minister named Max King published a series of books advocating the view. Basically, the view is a combination of the following claims or points:

  1. Jesus came back once in for all in the first-century (AD70).
  2. The collective resurrection of believers occurred in the first-century.
  3. The judgment of the wicked and righteous occurred in the first-century.
  4. There will be no end of sin or culmination of God's plan for the earth.

I had previously done a podcast with a Full-Hyperpreterist in June 2010, called "The Consistent Conclusions of Full/Hyperpreterism where I discussed with a hyperpreterist that goes by the name "Rivers of Eden" (ROE), the consistent conclusions of the hyperpreterist view, which is that God gathered all Elect and is thus effectively done with humanity and earth. Although I overall disagree with hyperpreterism, I agree that its consistent conclusion is that if God's plan was to gather the Elect AND we assume that happened in AD70, then there is no more to the story.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Christian Exegesis of The Resurrection

BEFORE, we can get to a Scriptural discussion we have to discuss presuppostions. It is the presupposition of hyperpreterism that God, Jesus, the hand-picked apostles, and the Holy Spirit were such ineffective teachers, that the day before AD70 and the day after AD70, Christians believed and taught basically the same thing we Christians believe today -- and hyperpreterists say that is wrong. Hyperpreterists are like magicians who try as they might with sleight of hand and delusion to try to get people to ignore DEALING WITH the hyperpreterist presupposition.

Over and over again, we've seen the hyperpreterists display outright disdain for historic Christianity and Christians in general as if there has been 2000 years of dummies running around, YET hyperprets want to claim their hyperpret version of "god" should be trusted??? YET they want to claim that we should read the bible from their hyperpret version of "god". The hyperpret version of "god" couldn't maintain truth so why would we trust anything that would be in the Bible???

THANKFULLY, the Christian God, the God of the Bible DOES and HAS sustained basic understanding of His plan. For 2000 years, Christians have UNITEDLY believed and taught that SAME THING on the eschatological basics since day one. Hyperpreterists come along, after Max King gets them started and try to get us Christians to join their little dog and pony show they claim is "exegesis". They want us to ignore God the Sustainer and instead follow them along in their TWISTED interpretations.

Now, looking at the discussion between Jesus and Martha, from a CHRISTIAN perspective, but FIRST let's actually quote the text:

Monday, November 22, 2010

Hyperpreterist "Exegesis"?

Hyperpreterists try to get people to engage them on their proof-texts. They call this being "exegetical". But the reality is the "exegesis" of hyperpreterism goes something like this:

"We want people to engage us in our false-premise driven interpretation yet we want to be able to ignore our overarching premise that says 2000 years of united Christians were too dumb to understand the basics on eschatology. We want to ignore the fact that the hyperpreterist premise implies that God, Jesus, the hand-picked apostles, and the Holy Spirit were such ineffective teachers that the day after AD70, Christians believed and taught what 2000 years of Christianity has believed and taught -- though we hyperpreterists somehow think we can be more effective teachers than God, Jesus, the hand-picked apostles and the Holy Spirit."

Look, if God, Jesus, the hand-picked apostles, and the Holy Spirit couldn't relate basic eschatology so that people understood, why are these hyperpreterists so ARROGANT to think they can figure it out?

Saturday, November 20, 2010 Quietly Pulls The Plug?

Hyperpreterism is constantly trying to go mainstream, to be accepted as "Christian".  In this effort, hyperpreterist Mike Loomis has started what he calls a "Preterist Radio Station".  It is actually merely a collection of hyperpreterist podcasts, which are streamed live.  Also, Loomis has been able to get some non-hyperpreterist shows on his "station".  This has allowed him to make his station appear more mainstream.

Recently, apparently one of those non-hyperpreterist shows pulled the plug on airing on  The press release said in part:

Prison Minster Marty Angelo pulls plug on weekly radio show Controversy halts prison minister's desire to broadcast on Hollywood CA - November 22, 2010 - Prison Minister, author and former radio host Marty Angelo has to stop broadcasting his weekly radio show on It seems there is quite a controversy brewing within this preterist radio network regarding a new participant who is called only: "Rivers of Eden" (ROE). This individual claims that Jesus Christ only came to earth to save the Jews and the Kingdom of God ended at the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70 by the Romans. 

Now, granted the entire announcement is likely to be a hoax as hyperpreterists are likely to pull.  But if true this is a major push back against hyperpreterism in the heart of its attempts to promote itself among non-hyperpreterists.

An Example of an Example

Rush Limbaugh got into a little hot water with political liberals when he said: "I hope Obama fails" (source) So then it should be no surprise that I get into trouble with theological liberals when I make it clear that I hope the heresy of hyperpreterism and those who promote it fail. (source) The liberal religionist that got upset was a man named Phil Naessens. I then pointed out how unchristian it was to NOT desire the failure for those things and people who oppose God, this was in response to Naessens comment:

"You don't want to root against anyone. Especially if you're a Christian. You don't want to root for others to fail. Do you ever see people that have done that. Just rooted for people to fail?" -- Phil Naessens, a liberal religionist complaining that I desire the failure of hyperpreterism and those who promote it. -- listen to the 40 second audio clip of Naessens saying it

My point then, and now is the same as Limbaugh's point was in the political world. If there is a right and wrong ideology, be it political or theological; then of course we want to "root against" those who advocate the wrong ideology. We do want them to FAIL in the promotion and advancement of the wrong ideology. My original posting on this issue can be found here, and other places frequented by Naessens and supporters of Naessens. My point WASN'T about sourcing or not sourcing, as I AM known for sourcing so that people can follow the point and context. However, the example of Naessens I was using wasn't so Naessens' narcissism could be fed by people going to his website. Feel free to google him if you are interested. The example was restricted to the one comment Naessens made while he was actually participating in validating the very thing I hope fails; hyperpreterism. The context needed no further explanation.

I've posted this new article because Naessens seems a bit miffed that he once again was exposed (Eph 5:11, Jude 1:3, Romans 16:17-18, and very especially 2 Timothy 3:2-7 which tags Naessens to a T), exposed for being on the wrong side of God's care and consideration for Christians. But it doesn't end there. Naessens, thought he was going to score a home run with his new complaint, but Naessens' main supporter, Dee Dee Warren quickly shot him down.

Dee Dee, who clearly has no love for me, still honestly replied to Naessens faulty reasoning:

"...personally, I don’t think it is wrong to root for someone to fail, if the way we are doing it is to pray first for their repentance, and if they don’t repent, for God to sovereignly cause their failure." (source)

Dee Dee rebuffs Naessens further, after Naessens tried to make it look like he was talking about not rooting for people's financial failure.

"Hi Phil, I still respectfully disagree. I pray for the financial ruin of abortionists. FIRST for their repentance but if not, then for them to be foiled in every way." (source)

Exactly Dee Dee. I guess Dee Dee isn't going to be completely led astray by Naessens, the liberal REAL vendetta-driven religionist that validates and supports the heresy of hyperpreterism.