Friday, December 31, 2010

Jason Bradfield (aka kingneb) Says...

Jason Bradfield, the right hand man to FORMER hyperpreterist leader; Sam Frost had this to say recently:

"Within full preterism, you have two kinds of people. Who have those who have (1) thrown off all restraint and could care less about what orthodox christianity has been doing and teaching for the past 2,ooo years and then you have (2) those who view that as wreck-less and still want to maintain some sort of connection with 'historic Christianity', but wish to alter only eschatological issues which they believe only effects a small percentage of the worldview." --http://bradfieldfamily.posterous.com...preterism-pt-4
He later in the article concludes...

"Perhaps the two group distinction within full preterism is just a facade. When push comes to shove, group (2) starts sounding an awful lot like group (1) and both end up doing nothing but leeching."
Keep in mind who Bradfield is in relation to the 'movement". Bradfield filled the void after liberal/Emergent/universalistic hyperpreterist Virgil Vaduva went down in flames along with his now dormant website; PlanetPreterist. Bradfield set up several websites and helped set up other people's websites to help replace PlanetPreterist.

What Bradfield is saying here is something I've said for years. Ultimately, to really be a "consistent" hyperpreterist a person MUST take the "group 1" approach. They MUST as Bradfield says, "throw off all restraint and could care less about what orthodox christianity has been doing and teaching for the past 2,ooo years".

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

How Many Well-meaning People Become Heretics

As these battles rage between Christians and those, OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIAN folks, I know to an observer it must seem at times that hyperpreterists are being portrayed as three-armed freaks or something. While heresy is very, very damaging to the spiritual lives of those who hold to a heresy and to those who may fall for parts of it; many well-meaning people have become heretics. It usually is built on a premise that the person simply wants to be "true to the Bible". And that is indeed a noble endeavor. But where the eventual heretic goes wrong is thinking that the Bible just plopped to earth one day. The Bible is God's Word, to His Elect -- The Church.

When a person takes a good thing, for example freedom we have in America and then knowingly or unknowingly begins to twist it beyond its original intent and scope (where the word "hyper" comes from), then what was good becomes dangerous and destroying. For example a freedom loving person could begin to advocate anarchy. What is the difference between freedom and anarchy?

This is what many well-meaning hyperpreterists have done. They have taken the right notion of Sola Scriptura and twisted it into SOLO Scriptura where it is more about their private interpretation of Scripture than about Scripture itself. Imagine a person who privately interprets "freedom" to mean a person can do whatever they want. What is wrong with that interpretation?

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Ex-Hyperpret Leader Says Hyperpreterism Isn't Christian

After years of hyperpreterists and some "anti-preterists" condemning me for pointing out that hyperpreterism is something OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIAN, on Dec 25, 2010 Ex-Hyperpret leader, Sam Frost says the same thing:

"Full Preterism and Christianity are incompatible." --source

This is huge. For a long time, even the anti-preterists would tell me, "Aw Roderick, you shouldn't go around saying hyperpreterists aren't Christians. That's offensive."

Whether it is "offensive" or not, more and more people are seeing as this ex-Hyperpret leader pointed out, Full/Hyperpreterism and Christianity are incompatible. This means a person can't really claim to be a Christian AND a Full Preterist, anymore than a person can claim to be a Christian AND a Mormon. That is just how it is.

Before any of you hyperpreterist chime in here, please keep in focus that this is Sam Frost saying this. Deal with what he is saying if you won't deal with what I've been saying; but don't come changing the topic or trying to get in a personal attack.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

The Wilson-Gentry Method To Combating Hyperpreterism

If you are new to this discussion, you will no doubt have seen all the aggressive words and tension going on. First, as Christians we should not immediately run from this or judge it as "unchristian". After all, there IS a time to oppose wrong doctrine -- and forcibly so. (examples from Scripture: Deut 13, Rom 16:17-18, Eph 5:11, Jude 1:3).

Hyperpreterism is unlike ANY KIND of expression of Christianity that has EVER existed. Hyperpreterism is something OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIAN. On this point, all Christians are AGREED!


Sunday, December 12, 2010

Preterist News Series

Brian Simmons has graciously allowed me to transfer my articles originally published on his site here to The Unpreterist. You can access this series by following this link: preteristnews series.

This is a brief collection mainly interacting with the degradation of the so-called "anti-pret" counter-hyperpret movement. The PreteristNews website was the REAL last bastion against hyperpreterism after PretBlog succumbed to the Talbotiting influence of the hyperpret coddler, Kenneth Talbot.

Anyhow, again a big thanks to Brian Simmons and the great work he has done to help dismantle the hyperpreterist movement.  Unlike Islam, Mormonism, and JWs; Hyperpreterism seems to have been stopped in its tracks before it could grow.  Praise God!

Hyperpreterist Update Dec 6th 2009

Although I have left the 'Cause' of fighting the heresy of hyperpreterism, which means I will no longer be part of an organized effort I will however periodically post updates on what is going on within the hyperpreterist movement. Those updates will appear on unpreterist.blogspot.com and hyperpreteristnews.wordpress.com.

Types of Preterists Reviewed

It is difficult to categorize something that is in constant flux, but since many people wonder how many types (factions and sub-factions) of preterists there are and how each developed, I will attempt to categorize the types of preterists -- with source documentation of course. I hope to offer resources that you will not find any place else, either among the hyperpreterists or those fighting against hyperpreterism. I'd especially warn against the wikipedia entry on Preterism, as it was mainly authored by hyperpreterists and slants definitively in the hyperpreterist direction. I will attempt to give links to NON-hyperpreterists sites for the non-hyperpreterist references, but of course expect to be linked to hyperpreterist sites for hyperpreterist references. I will sometimes utilize wikipedia reference specifically because those references are open source and can be publicly challenged.

Onus Probandi - Samuel Frost M.A.R.

onus probandiHyperpreterist teacher and "leader" Sam Frost said on Feb 8, 2010:

"I am a Trinitarian, for example, because the creeds have settled that matter for me in Church History. It is the majority view. I wouldn't even begin to attempt to argue against it unless there was some massive warrant (like Preterism) to do so." (source)

The context for this quote, before I'm accused of taking it out of context, is Frost arguing with his follow hyperpreterist, Norm Voss. Voss is advocating that historic Christianity is so messed up, that hyperpreterists should chuck historic Christian interpretations (especially as it relates to the Genesis account) and start over from scratch.

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.

When The Compromisers Come: Contra Mundum

AthanasiusThe Church has been faced with various heresies since the start; be it the Judaizers who were said to be "believers" (Acts 15:5) but advocated Christians must hold to overall Judaism, or whether it be the Gnostics, or the Arians, or the worse heresy; hyperpreterism. The Church as a whole has always stepped up to the challenge...eventually. But often leading up to the time when the Church actually deals with the heresy there comes compromisers; people claiming to be Christians who really want to simply placate the heresy and accept it as much as possible. This is most pointed in the Arian heresy.

Creedalized Hyperpreterism?

For all their talk against "creeds" and "councils" hyperpreterists secretly don't really despise creeds and councils, they just despise Christian creeds and councils. Hyperpreterists actually want to replace Christianity with their own religion. This is most apparent in something hyperpreterist leader, Sam Frost wrote supposedly in 2002-03 and reasserted in December of 2009.

'Orthodox Preterism' Goes Postmodern

In all our years within the Hyperpreterist movement and fighting against Hyperpret Virgil Vaduva's attempt to marry the Postmodernist/Emergent movement with 'Full Preterism', something typical Vaduva and his cronies would say is; "IT'S ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIP". They didn't care if a person's doctrine was fatally flawed or if someone was a melodramatic egotist, or even an habitual liar. To Vaduva and crew, it was all about relationship.

But now it has come full circle. Dee Dee Warren of the supposedly "anti-hyperpreterist" website, PRETERISTBLOG has recently joined the chorus of compromise all for the sake of "relationship".

After some trying personal matters, Dee Dee has been seeking funding for her websites. It appears some hyperpreterists decided to help her out. Yes, yes to show how "loving" they are no doubt.
"I was very pleasantly surprised that some hyperpreterists assisted me. Despite theological differences, I do believe that we can be friends and bear one another’s burdens...More and more for me, this work has been about relationships." -- source
See, Dee Dee needs Hyperpreterists, there is a symbiotic relationship there. It isn't really about defeating a horrid doctrine, but instead it is about hyperpreterists being her "friends" and "bearing one another's burdens". After all, it appears Hyperpreterism is being downgraded from an anti-gospel cult to now merely a group with "theological differences".

If anyone still thinks PreteristBlog is the breaker against Hyperpreterism's encroachment into Orthodoxy, think again. Due to the events over the last two years, PreteristBlog is just a few compromises away from being a "Rodney King" example of "can't we all get along".

The Unqualified Apologist?

Okay, it just keeps getting weirder and weirder. PreteristBlog, the site that purports to be the main site against hyperpreterism, after recently accepting funding from hyperpreterists, now the main poster over there says he is not sure he is qualified to help walk a reader through hyperpreterism.

The reader asks:
"Can you help me out in the whole hyperpreterism matter, I really need someone to hold my hand as I try to navigate through the various issues.
Either we can email each other (which I would prefer) or via some blog, which ever you can do." -- source
PaulT, PreteristBlog's main writer (who was never a hyperpreterist...I don't think they have one author over there that has even been a hyperpreterist and part of the movement), PaulT answers:
"I’m not sure I’m qualified, so I’ve asked a 3rd party to reach out to you independently to assist with your questions and provide guidance." -- source
Yet this guy has been writing post after post about the errors of hyperpreterism and he here has to pass the ball? Ummmm, no wonder PreteristBlog has become more a place where Dee Dee posts her personal problems or begs for funding.

Axiomatic Case For God's Sustaining

God's SustainingAn axiom is a starting point or presupposition, often one that requires no proof but is assumed so as to allow for conclusions. Perhaps a person thinks they never operate from axioms, as if all of their conclusions are built from carefully, and logically presented proofs. But in reality, there are many things from which we operate axiomatically. As Christians, we assume some things. We may assume or presuppose the existence of God without "empirical" proof. We may presuppose the Bible is the Word of God. We may presuppose that the Bible is inerrant. We may presuppose that God cannot lie. We may presuppose God is "good". We may presuppose many of these things before we have read any text that claims it.

I would like to examine a very important axiom which must be considered before all these other axioms and perhaps impacting how we interpret Christianity in general.

A Clarkian Fails Again

Ok, we've seen some back and forth about Clarkianism within Preterist/Hyper-Preterist circles. As we stated other places, Clarkianism has as an axiom, "The Bible is the Word of God written". Now, all Christians would amen this statement, however it is not really an axiom, as an axiom is a presupposition WITHOUT any deduction -- it is an "a priori" starting point. (see definition) Christians agree that the Bible is the Word of God written, however we first affirm God. God is REALLY our axiom, our starting point. There is no denial that the Bible is the Word of God written, nor do we attempt to "divorce" God from His Word. But before the Word, is God, whether we could ascertain what God is or not, we had an innate awareness of God. We'll see more about this as we go.

I want to at this time address an audio recently done by Clarkian/Frostian/Talbot devotee, Jason Bradfield. (see link). To make it easier to interact with, I've transcribed the audio into text.

Scripture and Full/Hyperpreterism

Over the years of being a Full/Hyperpreterist and then interacting with the movement from the outside, I have noticed the appeal to "Scripture alone" or "just the Bible". Such an appeal is certainly a noble and correct appeal. But as has been pointed out on this blog several times (especially by Brian Simmons), it isn't really about who does and doesn't appeal to Scripture but rather it is a matter of how Scripture is interpreted. It is a matter of how we approach the Scriptures.

Full/Hyperpreterism has an approach that claims that for 2000 years, Christianity has basically been in gross error on the most basic interpretation of eschatology. They MUST then consider what this "premise" means to how they approach not only interpretation of the Bible, but the Bible itself.

House Divided; Interaction with Pages 102-109

As part of my promise to answer some initial questions posed by hyperpreterist, Mike Sullivan I am going to interact with pages 102-109 of House Divided (by Dave Green, Ed Hassertt, Mike Sullivan and Sam Frost).

I will now proceed with HD pages 102-109. Sullivan, first correctly notes that many commentaries parallel Acts 1:11 with a "like-manner" return of Christ at some future date. A citation of some of those commentaries on Acts 1:11 is as follows:

Hyperpreterist Buffet: A little here and a little there

Tsau latsau, kau lakau

One of the main arguments surrounding Hyperpreterism is the FACT that it can't be shown to be taught in the history of Christianity prior to the late 18oo's and specifically in 1971 with Max King. Hyperpreterists have made various attempts to answer this issue, for example Hyperpreterist teacher, Edward Stevens posits there was a 1st-century rapture that removed all of the "first-rank" Christians leaving only so-called "second-rank" Christians to build the post-AD70 Church and therefore Stevens concludes that it should be no wonder that for 2000 years Christianity has taught nothing such as Hyperpreterism. Stevens' contention is that the second-rank "Left-Behind" Christians didn't really understand what happened in AD70 and therefore initiated the supposedly erroneous eschatological view that UNITED Christianity has espoused for 2000 years (source).

Other attempts by Hyperpreterists to reconcile the issue have come in the form of advocating that "full preterism has always existed in trace form". Or yet another tries to justify Hyperpreterism "new doctrine" by claiming Martin Luther and the Reformers were advocating new doctrine with justification by faith alone; Hyperpreterists will even quote Reformed theologians who seem to agree that Luther was teaching something new. Ultimately, the Hyperpreterist argument and overarching premise is that for whatever reason, God was either unable or unwilling to sustain a basic understanding of His eschatological plan among His community of saints; as if 2000 years of Christianity has been in gross error. Most Hyperpreterists have no problem with this premise and don't seem to understand that the consequences leave them and Christianity itself as bogus and doubtful. I mean, if God hasn't sustained truth, then why trust any doctrine we have within Christianity? Why even trust that the Bible we have today is the Bible; since perhaps there are missing books or books added that God didn't intend. This notion of God having not sustained basic understanding within His collective new covenant community leaves us prepped to accept the next Muhammad, the next Joseph Smith Jr., the next Charles Taze Russell, the next Max King that comes claiming what Christians have always believed is in gross error and these men somehow figured out the truth.

Is Justification By Grace/Faith Alone A 'New Doctrine?'

There has been argument by some Hyperpreterists that they are validated in purporting the HP doctrines, even if those doctrines are new; because these same people claim Luther and the Reformers were advocating new doctrines never before articulated in the Church. Although these people don't seem to understand that this reasoning DOESN'T help their case, it simply denigrates the Reformation and makes it as illegitimate as the HP new doctrine, they persist in finding otherwise respectable theologians that unwittingly make comments that seem to support the idea of justification by grace/faith alone being a new doctrine.
I have admitted that more needs to be done to show that justification by grace/faith alone is NOT a new doctrine and I plan to devote several years to it. I can't count on seminarians like Dr. Talbot to come forth because he is too busy trying to craft his own version of Preterism that he is calling "Realized Preterism" or getting his proxies to follow along. Several people here have realized that Talbot is actually trying to have his cake and eat it too, by inventing a hybrid version of "Full Preterism".

Hyperpreterist World - in it all together

[caption id="attachment_2105" align="alignleft" width="200" caption="Hyperworld"]Hyperworld[/caption]

Well, it's that time again. Come along as we look into the wacky world of Hyperpreterists. What person is trying to be the center of attention this week? What are they fighting over? Who has compromised with whom just to keep the "movement" unified?

Up first is Mike Loomis, formerly known as "psychomike" (a name of his own choosing). Loomis, like many hyperpreterists was either unemployed, underemployed or on disability/welfare (giving them lots of time to start websites).

Hyperpreterism's Impact on the Function of the Holy Spirit

Whether you believe hyperpreterism is heretical or not, it is important to examine how the hyperpreterist paradigm impacts doctrines beyond just eschatology. When I was in the movement back in the 1990s a common mantra voiced by hyperpreterists was that they were proposing a "paradigm shift". But as opponents of hyperpreterism continuously pointed out that even hyperpreterist's were unwittingly admitting their doctrine -- as a radical paradigm shift -- is indeed a radical departure from historic Christianity. Hyperpreterists didn't want their views framed this way and have since toned down using the term "paradigm shift" in reference to their views.

Adopting hyperpreterism is not like adding a theological accessory to your Christianity. Hyperpreterism ISN'T just about your "endtimes" or eschatological views. Hyperpreterism impacts EVERY aspect of your belief. I'd like to take a look at how hyperpreterism impacts the function or role of the Holy Spirit.

Preterist Radio Failing?

For those who may not know, the hyperpreterist movement is constantly trying to find ways to make inroads into general society, how to be seen as legitimate. Other cults like the Mormons and the Scientologists do this with well placed and produced TV commercials. The JWs do this with creating their own Bible translation and door-to-door outreach. Well, the hyperpreterists are doing all they can to move to the next level as has these other cults. The hyperpreterists don't presently have the organization or the funds to do TV spots, though there had been chatter from some of them to rent billboards. They have already attempted and failed to produce a "preterist study bible". This project was destined to fail since it was initiated by the most liberal hyperpreterist out there, Virgil Vaduva and had as its general editor, Sam Frost -- perhaps the most elitist and arrogant hyperpreterist (even so considered by his fellow hyperpreterists).

How Hyperpreterism Affects the Atonement

Hyperpreterists are fond of making it look like their view barely affects historic Christian doctrines. For example they will often say something to the effect, "That they don't deny the resurrection of the believers...they merely place it in the past". This attempt to minimize hyperpreterism's actual chasm of departure from historic Christianity is a frequent plot of hyperpreterists all the while in the next breath hyperpreterists will ridicule the Church as having supposedly been in gross error for 2000 years.

Recently, someone wrote me asking how hyperpreterism affects the Atonement. Now, if a hyperpreterist were to answer this, they might claim there is no affect but that just isn't true. Let's explore.

Sincerity Rarity Among Hyperpreterism

As a former 15-year long hyperpreterist myself, I have for a few years now, been beating the drum that the number one issue that hyperpreterism must face is that hyperpreterism MUST claim that 2,000 years of historic Christianity has been in gross error on the basics of eschatology. Typically, hyperpreterists respond in a few ways:
  1. Claim some sort of 'trace' form of preterism that supposedly always has existed in historic Christianity (yet no such form exists).
  2. Claim some massive dupe of Christianity, such as a 1st-century rapture or immediate post-AD70 apostasy that has supposedly left historic Christianity in supposed error. Or simply claim 2000 years of Christians have been unitedly stupid when it comes to interpreting the Bible on eschatology
  3. Ridicule the question as an appeal to Roman Catholicism ("Eckwardian")
  4. Ignore the question and redirect (such as trying to have a discussion over 'time-statements')

If they won't listen to us....

In December 2007 I went on the radio/podcast show called The Narrow Mind (TNM) with Gene Cook jr and publicly renounced hyperpreterism. After that program, hyperpreterist Jason Bradfield aka "kingneb", protege of hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost made several comments on the program. Bradfield tried to at first claim I was simply trying to "get attention", but when it was shown that I specifically didn't even mention my website, Bradfield attempted several other things, including claiming I was simply trying to bash my former "full preterist" fellows.

FASTFORWARD July/Aug 2010

In 2010 Bradfield posted a scathing "apology" against the hyperpreterist movement, claiming MANY of the same things I claimed in 2007. Here are a few quotes from Bradfield, all from the same article. Read them and then listen to the TNM podcast I did in 2007 and see if Bradfield sounds like he is where I was in 2007.

BRADFIELD'S COMMENTS

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 Vince...now Jason, and I sure hope Sam doesn't follow suit." -- source


Thursday, December 2, 2010

Answering Hyperpreterists

Whether interacting with Mormons, JWs, Muslims, or Hyperpreterists; a Christian should start first with the cultist's overarching premise.  For example, before we even get to Scripture with a Mormon, we should first address the Mormon premises that;
  1. a group of Jews/Israelites settled in America pre-Columbus.
  2. that Jesus' statement in John 10:16 of having "other sheep" was a veiled reference to those supposed Jews in America.
  3. the entire Mormon premise of Joseph Smith Jr. as the last prophet.
In the same way, over and over again a hyperpreterist will begrudgingly posit that the hyperpreterist premise is that God, Jesus, the hand-picked apostles, and the Holy Spirit were such ineffective teachers that supposedly the day after AD70, all Christians of any mention until present have been believing and practicing a grossly erroneous eschatology.  According to hyperpreterism, Christianity, in the eschatological sense (which is a very large part of Christianity) has more or less been non-existent until the 1970s when Max King began to promote hyperpreterism.  Indeed, Max King often claims to be the "founder" of hyperpreterism (he calls, "covenant eschatology" or "fulfilled eschatology").