The State Of Preterism: 2010-2011

Since the reader will no doubt notice how confusing it is to navigate all the websites talking about "preterism" -- because so many of them are caught up in petty inter-personal feuds -- I would like to present the state or condition of the preterist movement from 2010 and entering 2011.

Maybe the reader will consider that my objectivity for this task comes from the fact that both the "preterist movement" AND the "anti-preterist movement" consider me an enemy.  As well as they should since I believe both "movements" suffer from the same Proverbs 26:12 mentality.  I am NOT trying to say Roderick Edwards is the guy with the right view and everyone else is wrong.  As a matter of fact, I do not present a "personal view" but instead constantly point to the fact that historic Christianity is united on basics and that is "my view".  This upsets hyperpreterists and the anti-preterists alike who then go on to malign historic Christianity as if it hasn't been united.  The hyperpreterists point to Martin Luther and claim things like the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" [forensic justification] was a completely new doctrine, implying we should then allow for hyperprets new doctrines.  Whereas the anti-prets are content to present things like "Realized Preterism" which in turn lends to the hyperpreterist notion that historic Christianity never had a developed eschatology and thus there is need to put forth one now.  So, both the hyperprets and the anti-prets MUST undermine historic Christianity for them to come out on top.

Now, let us review 2010 and what has happened within the "movement".

It's Not What You Say, But Who You Are

As a regular listener to the Rush Limbaugh show, I find that liberalism is almost identical in the theological world as it is in the political. You have all the same elements; liberals, conservatives, "RINOS" (Republican in Name Only) compromisers and those who will say anything to be loved and accepted by whichever group seems to be carrying the tide.

In theological circles I have found that it is not so much what a person says, or even how they say it; but who they are. If your name has been vilified; then no matter what you say it will be rejected or ignored. Another person can say almost the EXACT same thing, with perhaps even a harsher tone and their words will be pondered or praised.

Sam Frost Story 2011

As Sam Frost's unofficial nemesis I thought it fitting to address the major change going on in his theological world. As many readers may know, Frost is a dynamic "theologian" that had been a major leader within the Full or Hyper Preterist movement. I say "had been" because in 2011 Frost has recanted hyperpreterism.

First, we should define what we mean by "hyperpreterism".

HYPERPRETERISM DEFINED

Although hyperpreterism is difficult to define because it is constantly in fluctuation, there are 4 main beliefs that are common to the various types of hyperpreterism:

1. Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century.
2. The collective resurrection of believers happened in the 1st-century.
3. The Judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century.
4. There will be no end of sin and no culmination to God's plan for humanity.

Frost, like many hyperpreterists claims he studied himself into the movement rather than following any specific teacher into it. Frost had been a hyperpreterist at least since the mid to the late 1990s and bust onto the scene by speaking at almost every hyperpreterist conference held. Frost has always engaged people no matter their status, even if he himself would often boast of his education. So, while hyperpreterists like Don Preston may be more extensively published and engaged in more public debates; Frost has been the approachable "leader" within the movement.

Whitefield Theological Seminary Breeds Hyperpreterists?

Sam Frost, a known hyperpreterist leader who in 2010 grew tired of not being able to dictate how the hyperpreterist movement develops has revealed what I have been saying for some time;  Whitefield Theological Seminary appears to breed hyperpreterists.  In an article posted Jan 6, 2011 Frost seems to be quoting from David Chilton.  Chilton also embraced hyperpreterism.  The quote is as follows:

Chilton wrote in his biography, “I earned the Master of Divinity in Patoral Theology from Whitefield Theological Seminary in 1990, and the Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Christian Thought from the same institution in 1992, the latter primarily on the basis of my work on the Book of Revelation.” -- source

This isn't the first time Frost claims he built upon the things he learned from WTS to conclude his hyperpreterism.  But what is more disturbing is that Dr. Kenneth Talbot, the president and founder of WTS who has been known to not only coddle Frost's hyperpreterism but actually had Frost working on materials for use with the Christian students of the seminary supposedly had this to say according to Frost:

"I was talking to Dr. Talbot about this, who knew Chilton well, obviously, as he was a doctorate student at Whitefield, and he related to me that he had talked with Chilton just before he went to Austrailia, and confirmed to him that he was not leaving any of his Reformed theology behind." -- source

Does Talbot actually believe that Chilton could keep his Reformed theology AND be a hyperpreterist?

Whether WTS breeds hyperpreterism or not, hyperpreterist Sam Frost is certainly trying to paint it that WTS helped him AND Chilton become hyperpreterists and as if Talbot is okay with it.  At the very least, you'd think WTS would aggressively engage this if it isn't true but instead Talbot gives off signals that make it look like that not only as if he endorses hyperpreterism secretly but if he could control it, he'd adopt it.

I encourage hyperpreterists to enroll at WTS in droves...since Talbot is apparently okay with this heresy.