The UnPreterist

Spitting Spat Over Terms: FULL vs HYPER

2012-01-25T17:49:00.000-08:00

As the Kenneth Talbot-led ex-"Full Preterists" start to wake up to the things some of us longer term "formers" have been saying; it becomes amusing or perhaps vindicating to read what they eventually write. For example,
when Sam Frost first left the movement he said:

"I won't belittle you as "hyper-preterists" or "heretics" or any of those things. I know that doesn't work. It just inflames passions. Pointless, actually. You are made in God's image, and on that basis alone, worthy of respect. I will try my hardest. " -- source Jan 12, 2011

But a little over a year later, on Jan 25, 2012 Frost said this to a group of hyper-preterists:

"...the term, historically, "hyper-preterist" was not invented by FP. It came from a July, 1997 Chalcedon Report article (Kenneth Gentry). It applied to us regular FP. Later, FP picked it up and applied it to folks like Chris Camillo, "Taffy" and the like in order to distance themselves from the term. I don't like revisionism." -- source Jan 25, 2012

This is significant because it shows that Frost may finally be getting it. The prefix HYPER is not meant as a pejorative but as a grammatically accurate qualifier. Saying a person is a Full-Preterist is as senseless as saying a person is a "Full-Calvinist" if and when they go beyond (hyper) historic Calvinism.

But the hyper-preterists where Frost posted this are threatening him with banishment if he continues. Hyper-preterist Tami Jelinek had this to say about the issue:

"We are not "hyper-preterists" (the moderators of this site, nor anyone I know of who posts here regularly). Personally, I *do* consider hyper-preterism heretical. In fact I do not consider hyper-preterists believers, or Christians. To anyone posting here who is referring to any of us as "hyper-preterists": this language needs to stop immediately or you will not continue to post here." -- source

Comparing Frost's comments to Jelinek's, it is apparent that she is doing exactly as Frost said; engaging in "revisionism". That is, it is like a liberal Democrat trying to deny his views are ideologically socialistic. Just who are these "hyper-preterists" Jelinek wouldn't consider believers or Christians and why does she think Christians should consider her a believer or a Christian? Jelinek calling others heretical is like a Mormon calling a Jehovah's Witness a cultist.

Lastly, on a little side note, Frost's sidekick, Jason Bradfield recently admitted this:

" Error begets error. I don’t think it is insignificant that hyperpreterism flourished in Church of Christ circles. That doesn’t account for all of it, but it certainly explains a great deal." -- source Jan 19, 2012

This is important because I early on pointed out that the Church of Christ denomination's "Restorationism" was a big factor in why so many of the first and still most predominant leaders within the Hyper-preterist movement come from the denomination. (see here, here, here)

So, while Frost and the other Talbot-led formers are too full of themselves to set aside their hatred for me, they are just now beginning to use the arguments many of us independent formers used almost a decade ago; and for which they lambasted us. Maybe they can have a little humility and admit they were wrong and wrong to attack us for as long as they have.

Sam Frost: The Secret Full Preterist?

2012-01-14T13:45:00.000-08:00

While Sam Frost was still within the FP movement, he often complained how it was not systematic enough. It seemed he wanted to dictate how it would be presented. Well, it appears he is still at it. Commenting on an article where the author was detailing how "partial-preterism", if consistent should/would lead to FPism, Sam said:

"And, I don't get FP's using this argument (I used to use it when David Engelsma was saying it). Do you want to drive people AWAY from your view? Scare them off?...[Instead] Here's what you should post: "this is what X said, and I quote X" Then, deal with X's actual words and show where they contradict Y in Scripture or in his own argument. Or, "if P, then Y" of necessary inference - but anything else, like this fellow writes, is speculation and useless "leads to" fearmongering......It's like bringing up Hitler in an argument....." -- link: http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2362512

Talbot Says Sam Frost Isn't A Pastor

2012-01-05T23:48:00.000-08:00

Long time egotist, Sam Frost likes to feign being an "expert" and if you've ever had the misfortune of engaging the man in a verbal discussion; you will have been talked-over and interrupted incessantly. However, the lingering issue with Sam Frost; who in 2010-2011 recanted his 15+ years of teaching hyperpreterism is that Frost claims to have been a self-ordained "pastor" while he was a hyperpreterist. It continues to be an issue because he continues to claim this credential as if it was ever legitimate. Think about it. Suppose a Mormon who had been an Elder in Mormonism at some point recants Mormonism. Can he rightly claim he was EVER a leader within the Christian Church? This is what Frost is trying to do.

But during a January 2012 podcast, Frost's mentor, Kenneth Talbot -- president of a seminary -- said this:

"You cannot appoint yourself a minister. It must be recognized and the gifts must be understood, examined and then he is to have hands laid on him by the presbytery. Self-ordination is rebuffed completely. It is not seen as anything viable. And it is literally an insult to the Church of Jesus Christ. He doesn't let you play fast and loose with His Word. And the Word is very specific about those things."

Listen to the 10 second audio: http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/default/files/falsepastor.mp3

Read more »

Common Goals Need Common Principles

2011-12-31T10:28:00.000-08:00

As I watch PaulT flail about I've been thinking why there is such a disparity between me and the "Clarkian" anti-prets. I mean we have the common goal of opposing hyper or full preterism right? So shouldn't we be getting along swimmingly? I mean look, it was not too long ago that PaulT and Sam Frost were blasting each other as "illogical" and as "liars", but now that Frost suddenly APPEARS to have switched sides, all of the "illogic" and "lying" is swept under the rug in pursuit of the common goal.

WHERE I WENT WRONG...at least by Clarkians point of view

First, in any relationship; be it a business partnership, a sports team, a military alliance or a marriage there has to be MORE THAN a common goal. There has to be common principles driving toward that goal. For example, in WW2 the Allies joined with Russia/U.S.S.R just long enough to accomplish the common goal of defeating the Axis powers. But the USA and Russia didn't share the common principles and spent the next 50+ years at odds in a "Cold War".

Where I went wrong with the Clarkian anti-prets like PaulT, Sam Frost, Dee Dee Warren and their leader, Kenneth Talbot is that I don't share their common principles...or rather, their LACK of principles. For example, when I pointed out the flawed principles of their leader, PaulT actually said: "Roderick, I don't care if everything you say about him is true, we must protect his reputation." THAT is NOT a principle I share. I don't cover up corruption even among the people with whom I share a common goal. If they are corrupt, they are corrupt. This stance has made me a pariah among the Clarkians. The Clarkians have other principles I do not share, such as blatant misquoting people or making up quotes out of nowhere. They also like to call people undefined names like "turd", "bonehead", "jerks". I have no problem describing (naming) people and things but I like to use objective words like "snob", "elitist", "liar" -- those things can be immediately demonstrated as to whether it is true or not. On the other hand, how is a person demonstrated to be a "turd"??? These kind of names are simply immature and senseless.

So, just because people have common goals doesn't mean they can work together. If a sports team who's goal is to win the game has some people who want to play by the rules to win and some people who will make questionable plays to win; then that team will eventually fail to make the goal. I don't want to be on the Clarkian team where its "players" are men and women who often operate in inconsistency, hypocrisy, senseless and immature name calling, and outright flamboyant egotism, not to mention outright lying. If that makes me a lone-ranger outcast, so be it.

Remember Braveheart? William Wallace thought he shared the common goal with the Nobles of routing the English from Scotland, but when the Nobles acted corruptly, even betraying Wallace and principles; Wallace eventually opposed both the English and the Scottish Nobles. Although I'm no blue-faced Braveheart :o I feel much like Wallace.

The anti-pret "Nobles" and their "Robert the Bruce" seminarian are compromisers and corrupt men and women who can't be trusted by either side....or is their leader really Mornay?

2011-12-20T23:07:00.000-08:00

This is what happens when you go around attacking people and just attacking like....well...jerks. These two fellows expressly came onto a forum where I interact with hyperpreterists and those who are looking into hyperpreterism. They didn't come to discuss any of that. They came specifically to shout me down and shut me up. They don't like it when I point out how Kenneth Talbot has compromised with the hyperpreterists.

Well, the first fellow who arrogantly enough thinks he is a "slamdunker" is really named Phil Naessens. This is the same fellow who has threatened to sue me yet he thinks I should continue to interact with him and answer his questions. I don't communicate with folks that break 1 Cor 6. I don't communicate with folks that have such thin skin that they go to the "Gentiles" for help when they can't handle the FACTS.

The next fellow, "kingneb" is none other than Jason Bradfield; Sam Frost's P.R. man. This isn't the first time Jason was banned from this forum. He ignored the rules of the forum and started attacking the moderators -- whom I do not know from Adam. Jason even smugly accused the moderator of being "my girlfrield". Huh??? First, I've been married for over 21 years and secondly, no one knows the gender of the moderator in question. Simply immature of Jason.

Why do I relate all of this here? What does this have to do with preterism or hyperpreterism?

Read more »

Clarkian Admits Clarkianism Lends to Hyperpreterism

2011-12-18T23:25:00.000-08:00

Some people have had a difficult time following why I am so against Clarkianism; after all its axiom is: "The Bible is the Word of God written" -- why should I oppose that? I don't. Of course the Bible is the Word of God written, but that hasn't been the starting point in historic Christianity.

Cornelius Van Til and others in 1944 lodged a complaint against Gordon Clark's ordination/licensure within Van Til's denomination. Not only did Van Til's group complain that the denomination was waiving the rules that Clark had to have 2 years seminary training; Clark was philosophically trained but not theologically -- but they complained that Clark was compromising major elements of the Faith. Van Til said:

"The Christian doctrine of the knowledge of God is distinguished as well by its affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God as by its assertion of his knowability. The point does not need to be labored that the knowability of God lies at the very foundation of Christianity. That God can be known, and that he has given a knowledge of himself through his works and words, is pervasively taught in the Scriptures. The possibility and actuality of true religion depend upon the light and truth which God communicates to men. Skepticism and agnosticism are thoroughly anti-Christian." -- SOURCE: http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-complaint.pdf

Kenneth Talbot - The Hypocrite

2011-12-13T18:23:00.000-08:00

Dr. Kenneth Talbot, president of Whitefield Theological Seminary has a history of compromising with the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. This history started when he utilized hyperpreterist leader, Sam Frost to help develop student materials for the seminary. Next, Talbot has been documented as calling hyperpreterists; "brothers". But perhaps the worse affront to the Christian Faith is when Talbot knowingly enrolled hyperpreterist leader; Larry Siegle into Whitefield's "minister's" program. To whom does Talbot intend the hyperpreterist to minister with his Whitefield validated degree?

Maybe all of this wouldn't matter if Talbot presented himself as a liberal, "ecumenicist" -- we would expect such a "pastor" to be a compromiser but not only does Talbot present himself as Reformed but also as extremely orthodox. This behavior from Talbot is disillusioning to Christians and makes it worse that Talbot's followers; in a sense of loyalty to him, help to cover up for him or even help to attack those who would dare point out what Talbot is doing.

What makes Talbot an even bigger hypocrite and one that even the hyperpreterists should point out; Talbot's self-made denomination, RCPGA released a statement in 2010 condemning hyperpreterism:

"Whereas, these views represent an attack upon and undermining of the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, at the Second Coming of Christ, and the Final Judgment at the end of history, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly does hereby find that Full Preterism, Hyper-preterism or any other Eschatological System promoting any one or all of these errors is errant, heretical, and apostate, being therefore contrary to evangelical orthodoxy." -- http://www.rpcga.us/SiteContent/65/documents/Against%20Unorthodox%20Eschatology%20(RPCGA%20Approved).pdf

Why does Talbot on one hand coddle Frost for 10 years, use him to help develop student materials for his supposed "Christian" seminary, enroll a hyperpreterist into a "minister's" program with intent to bestow a degree on him, call hyperpreterists "brothers", and even say his own eschatology is "akin" to David Chilton's (Chilton who was a documented hyperpreterist -- ref), and lastly we have this picture of Talbot and his wife eating dinner with Siegle, Frost and their wives.

Talbot is the man on the far front right, Siegle is behind Talbot and Frost is at the back left. In light of 1 Cor 5:11 which says:

"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person."

Dee Dee Warren Attacks James White

2011-12-11T19:55:00.000-08:00

Dee Dee Warren, owner of the blog PreteristBlog who has promoted hyperpreterist compromiser Kenneth Talbot is now attacking James White. White has been consistent in opposing hyperpreterism, unlike Talbot who actually was using a hyperpret to help develop student materials for his supposed "Christian" seminary. Further, Talbot has knowingly enrolled hyperpret leader Larry Siegle into a "minister" program in Whitefiled Theological Seminary (Talbot's seminary). To whom will Siegle minister once he obtains his Talbot validated degree???

On the issue of Talbot knowingly enrolling a hyperpret into his seminary Warren said:

"I don’t believe orthodox institutions should knowingly allow those who deny an essential of the faith into their midst...Dr. Talbot knows I do not agree at all with orthodox schools allowing blatantly heretical students, but that is not the area of responsibility that God has given me. I am just noting my total disagreement for the public record, and will speak with Dr. Talbot in more detail if he wants to know more." -- source

Why does Warren want to critique Dr. James White but will not publicly address her mentor on such an important issue? Why does she claim "that is not the area of responsibility that God has given" her but thinks it is perfectly fine for her to poke her hypocritical nose into White's business? Who does this woman think she is?

Read more »

Sam Frost Thinks Hyperprets Hold the Scriptural High Ground

2011-12-01T17:10:00.000-08:00

Hyperpreterists always like to act like they are the grand champions of Scripture and everyone else are simply "creedalists", yet they cannot explain WHAT, WHY, and HOW the Bible is the Bible...at least without undermining hyperpreterism itself. Hyperpreterism's main premise is that for whatever reason; the Church fell flat on its discernment butt -- it supposedly grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted God's basic eschatological plan and instead, Christianity for 2000 years has been offering the world a lie when it comes to eschatology.

Well, now the champion of Clarkianism, Sam Frost has endorsed and validated the notion that hyperpreterists are the keepers of "Scripture as the Supreme Judge". Frost, in his unbridled hatred of me quips about my interaction with his 3 hyperpret co-authors.

lol….I am watching Ed, Mike and Dave slam Roderick on Pret Compost……Never argue with a FP on their foundation of Scripture as the Supreme Judge…..they’ll get ya every time (rightly so). Green smashed Wilson on this point. (source)

It is no wonder that people see the Talbotite Clarkians as compromisers with Hyperpreterists; not only has Frost's mentor, Kenneth Talbot allowed a known hyperpret help develop student materials for his seminary, and enrolled a known hyperpret into a "ministers" course at his seminary; but Talbot even point blank told us his version of eschatology is "akin" to what hyperpret David Chilton taught (see here).

Now here is this snobbish, elitist Clarkian Talbotite telling people that the hyperprets hold the Scriptural high ground. And people actually think Frost left the movement??? You could have fooled me.

Stripping Away Hyperpreterism's False Use of the Bible

2011-11-27T09:33:00.000-08:00

Supposed ex-hyperpreterist, Sam Frost caught on to something. In my opposition to the Clarkian method as opposed to the Mathison-Wilson-Gentry method of combating heresy (see here), Frost said this:

"[Roderick] is trying to strip away the very thing from them that allows [full preterists] to START. He wants some vague “God sustains” axiom."

Well, Sam partially seems to understand it. I'm trying to get hyperpreterists to tell me 3 things:

1. WHAT IS THE BIBLE? (why 66 books and no more or less)
2. WHY IS THE BIBLE THE BIBLE? (and not just any text)
3. HOW IS THE BIBLE THE BIBLE? (where did the Bible come from)

Indeed I AM fully admitting that I am trying to STRIP AWAY the false use of the Bible by the hyperpreterists. Frost and his fellow Clarkians approach the Bible as if it was a logician primer text rather than the SUSTAINED Word of God. The axiom that God Sustains is not vague. If God doesn't sustain basic truth and the basic understanding of truth then all the Clarkian propositions in the world aren't going to help anyone.

Read more »

Dee Dee Warren: The Paid Off Mercenary

2011-11-26T00:43:00.000-08:00

Dee Dee Warren, also now known (by her own outing of it), her real name Caryn Dos Santos WAS the administrator of the supposedly anti-hyperpreterist website; PreteristBlog. In about 2009, Warren drastically changed the methodology she was using to combat hyperpreterism. Previously, she was using what might be called The Mathison-Wilson-Gentry Method (see here). But then Warren was paid off by Clarkian, Kenneth Talbot by way of him giving her a free tuition for defending him against his critics. (see here).

Besides Dee Dee talking about how she thinks her dead pets will be in heaven with her, Warren follows the lead of her ideological heroes. For example: Zech 7:11 - But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears that they might not hear.

Dee Dee has an almost childish way about her where she'll claim she isn't listening to a thing you are saying, all the while she is insulting you. For example, recently Warren claimed I was a mercenary because I won't SHUT UP and support Talbot. But let's look up the word mercenary shall we?

1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.

Hmmm, well since Dee Dee is the one who accepted a REWARD for stabbing people in the back, for throwing them under the bus and for changing her methodology to the elitist Clarkian method, I say SHE better fits the role of mercenary. I'm not working for anyone. I didn't accept any reward. I didn't change my methodology to fit in. I'm certainly not a hireling. But Dee Dee accepted a free tuition.

This is the problem with Liberals, be it in politics or theology; they go around accusing people of the things they themselves ACTUALLY do.

Whether Dee Dee sees this or not who knows but she won't ever repent of the lies she tells. She has stopped up her ears and made her heart diamond-hard.

The Failed Clarkian Rubric and Hyperpreterism

2011-11-23T17:26:00.000-08:00

As readers may be aware, at one time I was part of a website called PreteristBlog. PreteristBlog was the premiere site for the effort against Hyperpreterism. The site owner, Dee Dee Warren has collected an impressive amount of material. From its founding until about 2009, PreteristBlog used what we might call the Mathison-Wilson-Gentry method or rubric in combating hyperpreterism (see here). This method started with what Doug Wilson called the Authority argument. That is, hyperpreterism MUST claim God did not maintain any authority over how the Church at large has represented God's plan. That somehow, we have been in gross eschatological error for 2,000 years. Further, Kenneth Gentry has said "We are opening our critique [of hyperpreterism] with the historic argument, that is, the argument from the historic creeds of the Church. We do this in order to establish the significance of the debate: We are defending the historic, corporate, public, universal, systematic Christian faith." (Ken Gentry WSTTB pg 2) This is not to say we never bring the Bible into it, but BEFORE we even get to the Bible and the proof-texts that hyperpreterists use, we MUST FIRST deal with their overarching premise. In the same way, when a person wants us to get into discussing which "green laws" we should pass, we MUST FIRST discuss the validity of the premise of "man-made global warming".

Read more »

Why Can't Roderick Edwards and Sam Frost Get Along?

2011-11-13T07:13:00.000-08:00

First, if upon reading the title of this article, if your initial reaction was "Who cares" then please move along. Don't comment, because it would be insincere and not productive to the goal of this article.

Secondly, the goal of this article is amicable resolution between myself and Sam Frost. This article was prompted by a comment Sam made on Nov 11, 2011:

"What ever I have "done" to you, you have got to let it go, brother. Just let it go. Do you really want to hang on to that? I don't. I HATE the fact that you and I fight. Absolutely hate it. I get along with every other ex [hyperpreterist], except you. Stop. Think. Why is that? What do you want me to do? Admit I am a fraud? A liar? A drunk? A failure? A snob? Fine. I am. It's time to team up. There are far TOO MANY who have come out of this movement to be sidetracked by the highway accident that is the Roderick and Sam show...I mean, without listing greivances, we can simply say, "Sam. I forgive you." "Roderick, I forgive you." Yes is yes. No is No. And move on. I am going way, way out of my comfort zone here, Roderick. I forgive you. Do you forgive me? No need to go on lists and records of past wrongs. Just a simple manning up will do. And our past can be erased as far as the east is to the west. Just like that. Poof."

The suggestion is very magnanimous and therefore I certainly don't take it lightly. My initial reaction was that Sam and I should have a phone chat to try to resolve the issues as face-to-face as possible. But, as is my practice with major issues, I try to wait a few days to act so that I can pray about, reflect upon and search Scripture over the matter. This way my actions are hopefully wise and thoughtful, productive and enduring.

Read more »

Kenneth Talbot and Sam Frost Advise Against Whitefield Theological Seminary

2011-10-15T13:56:00.000-07:00

Kenneth Talbot, president and founder of Whitefield Theological Seminary, and his star pupil Samuel Frost, unwittingly tell us why a person should NOT take courses from WTS. In a podcast Talbot did on October 9th 2011 with Frost the two men discuss how Frost was able to become a hyperpreterist, even though for many years Frost was under the direct tutelage of Talbot (source).

After the listener gets through Frost and Talbot talking over each other, they will hear the blatant and hypocritical contradictions of these men as they try to dance around the FACT that Frost was a major leader in the heresy of hyperpreterism while not only attending WTS but while he was actually helping develop student materials for the supposed "Christian" seminary. All this with the full knowledge and support of Talbot.

During the course of the discussion Frost tells us he was "fresh out of college" when he was exposed to hyperpreterism, which echoes ANOTHER hyperpreterist leader, Don Preston (see here).

Fresh out of college/seminary

Further, Frost AND Talbot both admit that the hyperpreterist movement sprang from the "churches of Christ" and Frost admits that "he didn't know what he was getting involved with". While Talbot says hyperpreterism is "centered" in the "churches of Christ" doctrine.

Frost admits to being a novice

Talbot on hyperpreterism being a coc movement

Yet, Frost admits his main influences while he was a hyperpreterist, were from "church of Christ" hyperpreterists, such as Don Preston, Jack Scott, William Bell and Larry Siegle. Of important note, Siegle is currently attending WTS and earning a "ministers" degree. Whom will this WTS trained heretic "minister" to? (source)

Frost in thick with hyperpreterists

Ironically, Talbot brings out the fact that Frost is one of the only "seminary trained" hyperpreterist leaders. Trained at WTS nonetheless, just like Siegle whom Talbot is training to be a "minister" though Siegle has not recanted his heresy. A lot of good being trained at WTS did Frost, since he continued to grow in the hyperpreterist movement while under the eye of Talbot. In fact, Frost would often brag that he was a hyperpreterist BECAUSE OF his training at WTS.

WTS trains heretics

Now, here comes the contradiction and hypocrisy if it hasn't been displayed yet. Frost tells the listeners that there really isn't anything "new" in theology and that the SAME ANSWERS that historic Christianity gave throughout the ages applies also today. -- AMEN! but..... keep reading/listening... Frost is a master of contradiction.

Christianity gives good and same answers

But close to the end of the podcast, both Frost and Talbot tell us the reason people fall into the heresy of hyperpreterism among other heresies is because the Church wasn't giving "good answers".
Christianity does NOT give good answers?

Whose job was it to help Frost? Here he is admittly, "fresh out of college", being exposed to a group he says "he didn't know what he was getting involved with" and yet while under the guidance of Talbot and WTS, Frost isn't being given "good answers" that would help him avoid heresy. Frost says there wasn't an "adequet defense" against what the hyperpreterists were saying. Where was Talbot and WTS in all this???

Well, perhaps the most revealing and shocking comment in the entire podcast was made by Talbot when he admits his self-made, "Realized Preterism" is in essence the same as David Chilton's hyperpreterism.

Talbot is a "modified" hyperpreterist?

First, Talbot falsely or deceptively tries to portray Chilton as a "modified preterist" rather than what Chilton himself admitted was full preterism. Talbot then tells us his own form of preterism that he calls "realized preterism" is "akin to" what Chilton was advocating. Chilton became a documented full or hyperpreterist. (source). It is no wonder then that Talbot and WTS couldn't help Frost avoid the heresy of hyperpreterism if it appears WTS' president is telling us in essence that he is embracing hyperpreterism via Chilton.

So, Frost having been under the tutelage of Talbot and WTS, who we now see apparently admit his eschatological views are akin to documented hyperpreterist Chilton, Frost says he understands why people become full preterists; because the Church isn't doing its job to properly instruct people -- WHO WAS INSTRUCTING SAM FROST WHEN HE WAS DEEP INTO HYPERPRETERISM???

So, why should anyone want to go to WTS when the president and its star student tell us that WTS as an agent of the Church has "FAILED" to "properly teach systematic theology"??? Isn't this the role of a seminary like WTS, to properly teach systematic theology? That is certainly what Talbot tells us in his promo at the end of the podcast.

WTS promotion misleading?

Why would someone want to let WTS provide their seminary and theological education needs if they have a podcast admitting they fail to "properly teach systematic theology"? When you think it can't get any worse, Talbot advocates the same premise that has generated hyperpreterism and the many other heresies throughout time. Every cult or heresy, including the "churches of Christ" with its "restorationist" the-true-church-and-true-gospel-failed and thus had to be restored mentality has started with the idea that the Church is failing. Talbot joins in with this false premise.

Talbot says Church is failing

Lastly, it comes full circle. Frost told us ealier on that the answers that the Church gives, have been the same and need not be changed because all heresies are merely old heresies wrapped in new packaging yet before the end of the podcast we have:

Frost telling us he was a novice when he fell into hyperpreterism
He didn't know what he was getting involved with
That the Church fails to properly teach people
Talbot telling us his views are "akin" to Chilton hyperpreterism
Talbot telling us the Church is failing
Frost questioning why the Church (ie WTS) didn't fulfill its role

WTS' role in heresy

When in October of 2008 I sent an email to Talbot and WTS to inquire about their position on hyperpreterism and why they were allowing Frost, as a known hyperpreterist leader to develop student materials for the seminary, Talbot didn't immediately write back but instead released my email to Frost whom I never mention in the email.(source) And then after a brief attempt to smooth things over with me, even by offering me free tuition at his seminary, which I ultimately declined, Talbot and his followers have done everything to destroy me. Why??? As you can see in THEIR OWN WORDS, in context (listen to the entire windbag, elitist podcast if you have the time), you see why. Frost and Talbot are building a "modified" version of full preterism called "Realized Preterism". To this day, you can only get Talbot's notes and lectures on his "Realized Preterism" if you are part of his select group. Why not place it in the public forum? Why all of this secrecy and attempt to make Chilton look like he was not a full preterist?

Before anyone claims it, what I have presented here is NOT "slander" or "libel" or "defamation" or "ad hom attack". These are Frost and Talbot's OWN WORDS. Not spun but honestly, openly, analyzed and presented. TKC welcomes comments even from non-registered readers unlike many of the places where Frost and Talbot administer which not only require registration to comment but sometimes to even read.

In their OWN WORDS why would anyone go to WTS if this is the kind of education they will receive? Frost's "hope" and educational needs were "misplaced".

Don K. Preston: A Novice in his OWN WORDS

2011-10-09T21:37:00.000-07:00

Don K. Preston: A Novice Teacher

2011-10-04T20:25:00.000-07:00

Don K. Preston, perhaps the last active "leader" within the hyperpreterist movement has begun a podcast series he is calling "Morning Musings". In this series, Preston recounts how and why he became a "full preterist".

First, I always think it is amusing how Preston claims he is the "president" of "Preterist Research Institute" as if there is an entire staff of officers. It is basically just Preston. But anyhow, during the initial podcast Preston tells us he "doesn't worry about traditions" and "doesn't worry about the creeds" (minute 2:31-2:44). Really? So, Preston is admitting he is a lone-ranger who only "worries about" his own interpretations of the Bible. However, Jesus didn't come to found a disconnected faith of radical individualists. Jesus founded a community of believers with common held beliefs. (1 Corinthians 10:17, Philippians 1:27, Jude 1:3) This disconnecting from the historic Christian community is the first step to any heresy. Preston has in essence made himself his master and disciple, whereas the Bible says:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. -- 2 Thes 2:15

Preston tells us from the start that he "doesn't worry about" or rather doesn't CARE about these "traditions". Instead he wants to listen to his own voice alone.

Hyperpreterism's Latest Trophy

2011-09-17T10:44:00.000-07:00

The hyperpreterist movement is always seeking a "big name" that will help validate them and carry them into "mainstream". They thought they were going to get this from Gary DeMar or R.C. Sproul, or Hank Hanegraaf.
The latest "trophy" is a man named, Frank Speer. Watch hyperpreterist Mike Loomis interview Mr. Speer.

UPDATE; Hyperpret Mike Loomis made it so I can't display the video on this site. This just goes to show you what kind of people these are. They are afraid to be assessed and will do everything to hide their true intent. You can still view the video by clicking the link at the bottom of the video box.

The Journey with Frank Speer-09.14.2011 from michael j loomis on Vimeo.

Mr. Speer, of course Loomis and the other hyperprets are going to be "supportive -- they want you to help validate their heresy.

Here is the text of an email I sent to Mr. Speer.

Read more »

How Dave Green Can Save PreteristCosmos

2011-09-06T21:15:00.000-07:00

Dave Green, the hyperpret owner and moderator of the yahoo group, PretCosmos has been the last hold out against the hypocrisy of Ken Talbot-influenced anti-prets. Green continues to point out, and is validated in pointing out the influence Talbot has had on the anti-pret PretBlog and now on ex-hyperpret Sam Frost's website, RCM. But now Green's support is beginning to crack among his fellow hyperpreterists. Only a handful remain in solidarity why the rest are giving way to the Sieglesque duplicity.

Be clear about it; I win either way -- If the "Talbotites" convince more people to leave the heresy of hyperpreterism -- it's a win, even though now the person would have to work their way out of the snobbish elitism that is Talbot's world. Or if Green succeeds in convincing people about the reality the of hypocrisy of the Talbotites -- it's a win because it will give people a chance at leaving the heresy without joining a cultish group like the Talbotites.

So, how does Green get out of this mess? Blame it on me. Give some mushy heart-felt apology to everyone and say that you were tainted by your association with me. Trust me Dave, it will work.

Do Gary DeMar's Books Lead to Full/Hyper-Preterism?

2011-09-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

Many of a full/hyperpreterist has launched into that "movement" first via the "partial-preterism" of men like Gary DeMar and even Kenneth Gentry; often citing their books. The difference between Gentry and DeMar is that Gentry has made it clear in print and audio that he believes full/hyper-preterism not to merely be a "dangerous error", but to be heresy on par with heresies like Arianism or cults like Mormonism. DeMar, on the other hand has not only not called full/hyper-preterism a heresy, DeMar has actually spoken at full/hyper-preterist conferences without making any distinction. DeMar has joined numerous full/hyper-preterist message boards in support of it. DeMar allows his materials to be promoted and published on full/hyper-preterist websites. DeMar was once asked outright by now ex-full/hyper-preterist Sam Frost if DeMar thought it was heresy. DeMar answers that he doesn't think full preterism is heretical (ref#1-mp3, ref#2, ref#3).

Mike Loomis, operator of the full/hyper-preterist podcast network, once said about DeMar:

"Anyhow. John [Noe] has done a lot of great work that has helped many people understand fulfillment even though I may disagree with him. Much like Gary DeMar. I disagree with him...Nonetheless he makes more full preterist's than the rest of us combined." - source

FP/Hyperpreterist "churches" and "pastors"

2011-08-18T20:42:00.003-07:00

When I was a hyperpreterist, I took the "paradigm" in a consistent way. Hyperpreterism doesn't merely affect eschatology. Any hyperpreterist that claims it only affects eschatology is either lying or too new to realize what is going on. Anyhow, one area I was concerned about as a hyperpreterist was ecclesiology -- how church functions within "full preterism".

For example, if all ended in AD70, then the import of Jesus hand-picking apostles to guide the Church in His absence takes on new meaning. And the "elders" over the "bunkers" of congregations waiting for Christ's return had a specific and time-limited purpose. This seems especially obvious when reading 1 Pet 5:1-4:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

If we are CONSISTENT with the FP/hyperpret paradigm, then the preAD70 "elders" function was to:

(1) Feed the flock among them
(2) Oversee the local congregation [not for financial gain]

And when the Chief Shepherd, Jesus appeared, in AD70 per the FP/hyperpret, then those elders would receive a crown/reward for being stewards of the local congregations over which they were APPOINTED. Who appointed postAD70 "elders" and when if ever would they get their reward???

Read more »

Another Ex-Hyperpreterist -- Praise Christ Jesus

2011-07-29T20:37:00.001-07:00

Ed Hassertt was often called the "pit bull of preterism". He was ready to defend the "FP view" tooth and nail. After the final straw of interacting with MoGrace2U/Robin, Ed finally has repented of hyperpreterism.

Some comments from him include:

"The only times I don’t like what I see in the mirror is when I am defending preterism, or talking with preterists. I wonder why that is?

Preterism tends to be filled with mavericks who do their own thing, walk away from any authority, and want to make their own permanent mark on the church. There is no real community, just a whole bunch of bandwagons that people are constantly jumping on and jumping off. The movement is in serious trouble."

Exactly, hyperpreterism is arrogant from the core. It adherents MUST claim Jesus, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit were unable to convey God's plan in a sustaining way. That supposedly, the day after AD70, all the known Christians either forgot or didn't understand the eschatological plan until along comes Max King who can somehow explain it better than Jesus, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit. Really??

Read more »

Don Preston Won't Debate His Own

2011-07-20T23:41:00.000-07:00

He goes by "RiversOfEden" because I think he works in sensitive government positions, and since hyperpreterists have been known to even threaten people's families -- he has to be careful. At any rate, it doesn't matter what a person's name is but what they are saying...well.. unless by knowing a person's name allows his opponents to personally attack him, which is probably the hyperprets motives for wanting R.O.E.s name. It is enough that he has been consistently using this alias.

R.O.E. was in the movement from early on. He helped Ed Stevens with some of his articles. What makes R.O.E. different than the average hyperpret, is:

1) He isn't trying to pretend hyperpreterism is "Christian".
2) He takes the hyperpret premise of "all fulfilled" to the logical conclusion.
3) He isn't....well...a jerk like most of them.

Let's deal with each of these 3 distinctions.

Read more »

Jason Bradfield Reveals Why Sam Frost Left The Hyperpreterist Movement

2011-07-18T19:11:00.000-07:00

After months of hyperpreterists speculating as to why Sam Frost left the movement, Frost's protege; Jason Bradfield has finally revealed the real reason. First, we know Frost's departure from the movement is not as clear-cut; after all, Frost STILL calls hyperpreterists his "brothers in Christ" and Frost maintains a podcast show co-hosted by hyperpreterist Mike Loomis. Even Bill Hill of CovenantRadio.com distanced himself from his co-host Jeff McCormack when it became obvious that McCormack was promoting hyperpreterism (source).

Read more »

I Don't Know You or 'Your Heart' But...

2011-07-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

Every so often, some hyperpreterist will respond to something I wrote here or elsewhere but the problem is that person ASSUMES a lot about me and then goes from there. Such a case happened with a fellow named Brett McNeill, associated with Don Preston's congregation. He was upset with my reporting of Don's resignation speech. Brett left some comments but they were so laced with falsehoods I urged him to rewrite them and then I'd post the comments. He asked me to clarify where he was using falsehoods. This is where the "Roderick, I don't know you or your heart but..." mentality comes in. Brett spends a lot of time trying to claim to know me and my heart and instead he ignores the stated FACTS of Don's speech.

I replied to Brett, carefully and paragraph by paragraph displaying the falsehoods within his comments. What follows is that exchange. My comments from hereon are in blue. Some exchange is referring to emails Brett has sent me. Article and audio of Don Preston that sparked this exchange: http://unpreterist.blogspot.com/2010/01/don-preston-resigns-because.html

Ardmore Family of God -- Don Preston's Personal Cult

2011-07-04T20:31:00.000-07:00

Don Preston, perhaps THE mouthpiece for hyperpreterism as Preston is the most published hyperpreterist author and the most widely followed hyperpreterist debater had also been a "minister" of a congregation. The "church" was originally called the "Ardmore Church of Christ" in Oklahoma. But in 2007-08, after 16 years of leading the congregation Preston delivered a farewell speech which was more of an admission that his congregation failed and that he was leaving due to lack of financial support. Listen to it yourself (source).

After Preston left, to pursue more money making opportunities, another hyperpreterist named Jack Scott took the helm. Scott spoke at a few hyperpret conferences but was never the big name that Preston had been. Scott resigned in 2010 but not before further deluding the poor folks attending that congregation. (More on that later)

But what is revealing is the REASON Preston resigned. From the ACTUAL speech that Preston gave at the time, he CLEARLY stated he resigned BECAUSE:

1. The congregation wasn't meeting its "hopes & dreams".

2. The congregation was failing to grow.

3. The young people were abandoning the congregation.

4. The congregation was not making it "possible" to financially support Preston's plans.

The audio and the text of the speech can be accessed here, since the congregation website itself has all but cleansed itself of the embarassing episode, not even telling the visitor the history of the "church". Since the focus on his speech, Preston and his apologists have ATTEMPTED to spin what happened. To this end, one of the congregation's administrators recently responded in part saying:

"Perhaps a blip of truth thrown into the heresay testimony given here may be helpful. My name is Brett McNeill. To establish some credibility with the readers, I was an officer of the Board of Directors of the church where Don Preston was the full-time minister..."

HOWEVER, we have Preston's own recorded speech and text to go along with it. The "truth" is there was no HEARSAY, it is was Preston's own words that his defender now wants to revision. There is no bitterness, simply reporting and reporting that let's the reader access Preston's ACTUAL words -- not the puditry of opponents or supporters of Preston. And whether a person likes or dislikes Preston or his teaching, Preston's OWN WORDS show that he resigned for the 4 reasons listed above.

JACK SCOTT ERA

Jack Scott only "ministered" to the congregation for about 3 years before resigning. Why? who knows, but perhaps the answer can be found in the "sermons" of July-11-2010 or July-25-2010.

In Scott's resignation speech he states:

"I know in someways many of you feel I've let you down and in reality that is probably the truth" -- July-25-2010

So, once again this congregation gets dumped. When will they learn that these men are using them?

The personal cult that Preston had turned this congregation into, passed to Jack Scott who also dumped them and eventually it appears turned it over to a man named Oscar Miles who is as much a radical, Christianity-hating individualist, private-interpreter as had Preston and Scott been. This poor congregation will probably experience the abandonment by this man too. Perhaps they should consider that God is trying to tell them something?

Is Sam Frost the New "Roderick"?

2011-06-24T18:02:00.000-07:00

Recently, hyperpreterist upstart Ken Palmer, said to former hyperpreterist big-shot, Sam Frost that he planned to be a "more vicious critic" of Sam Frost than I had been. The problem is, Sam in essence is the "new Roderick" himself; after all Sam and his new suddenly orthodox tag-a-longs are using almost ALL of the arguments I've been using for years against hyperpreterism.

THE BIG DIFFERENCE

But the big difference between me and Sam/Talbotites is that I have been a just as "vicious critic" against the HYPOCRITES within the so-called "anti-hyperpreterist" camp. I don't like dishonesty under any umbrella and will not long support someone who is dishonest no matter how much they try to play the "we're all in this together" card. After all, I called out a seminary president for his blatant compromise. What is Sam doing? Toying around with some no-name hyperpreterist. Sam has said that hyperpreterism/full preterism isn't Christian -- then let's see him put "feet to his faith" (as Sam's hyperpret buddy Mike Loomis wants to do with hyperpreterist universities, hospitals and such). Let's see Sam tell Mike live on air that Mike is NOT his Christian brother. Let's see Sam tell us that Don Preston is teaching an unChristian doctrine and like all known heretics that lead people astray needs to be sharply rebuked, not coddled and called "brother".

I think it is another reason even the hyperpreterists can't respect Sam and his mentor, Kenneth Talbot -- Sam and Talbot say out of one side of their mouths that hyperpreterism/full preterism is not Christian, yet out of the other side of their mouths Sam and Talbot embrace some of the smooth-talking hyperpreterists like Larry Siegle as "brothers". Talbot is even going to train Siegle to be a "minister" -- before any repentance of the heresy of hyperpreterism.

No, Sam isn't my replacement. Jason Bradfield isn't my replacement. Kenneth Talbot isn't my replacement. PaulT Gates certainly isn't my replacement. -- These men are all compromisers with the very error they claim to oppose. And we know, C.H. Spurgeon once said:

Read more »

The Cult of Hyperpreterism

2011-06-22T20:41:00.000-07:00

This was a video done that captured the cultic nature of hyperpreterism. In it, you'll see many of the faces of hyperpreterism's leaders, their book covers and conferences.

Hyper-Preterist Cult - -

Hyperpret Larry Siegle Responds

2011-06-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

Hyperpreterist Larry Siegle has been accepted to the M.Div program of Whitefield Theological Seminary (WTS). WTS (through Kenneth Talbot) now has a history of validating hyperpreterism; first when Talbot was utilizing then known hyperpret leader Sam Frost to develop the schools Hebrew program and now as WTS accepts a known heretic to a program that WTS says is:

"designed specifically to train men for the office of minister."
"designed specifically to train men for Counseling in the ministry"

Larry recently responded to my criticism of WTS and Talbot's decision. What follows is Larry's entire quoted comments along with my reply to Larry.

Read more »

Hyperpreterism and Communism

2011-06-19T21:03:00.001-07:00

Okay, whether a person thinks it is right or wrong; it is a matter of FACT that whether we look at pre-Roman Catholic, Roman Catholic, Greek/Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, Protestant/Reformed, Anabaptist, Modern Evangelical, Calvinistic, or Arminianistic expressions of Christianity; ALL of these are UNITED on 4 basic eschatological points:

1) Jesus is yet to return.
2) Resurrection of the believers is yet to be.
3) Judgment of the wicked and righteous is yet to be.
4) End of sin and culmination of God's plan is yet to be.

ALL expressions of historic Christianity have AGREED on these basics, perhaps in more unity than on ANY OTHER doctrinal issue. Hyperprets that quote some random quote that sounds "full preterist" is disingenuous when it can always be shown that the ancient theologian they quote ALWAYS ultimately agrees with the 4 points above.
Read more »

Whitefield Theological Seminary Continues To Validate Heresy

2011-06-15T20:34:00.000-07:00

In October 2008 I wrote to Whitefield Theological Seminary (WTS) and to its president and founder, Kenneth Talbot concerning its relationship with then hyperpreterist leader Samuel M. Frost. Frost had long boasted that he in part arrived at his heretical position via the tools provided him by WTS and Frost had made a point of claiming he was accepted by Talbot as a Christian brother. This is confirmed by Talbot constantly calling Frost and other hyperpreterists, "brother" and validated by the FACT that Talbot was purportedly utilizing Frost to help develop the student Hebrew program for WTS. All of this while Frost was still hot and heavy into the heresy.

My inquiry to WTS and Talbot's surprisingly rather unChristian response (see full details), caused me to distance myself from the so-called "anti-hyperpreterist" community (and the feeling was mutual, as the anti-hyperprets saw in Talbot, a new champion despite his validation of heresy).

My contention then and now is unwavering; that a Christian or a Christian institution should NEVER appear to be validating known heresy. It doesn't matter if the institution is not the Church proper, it still wears the label of "Christian" and when a known heretic can use that institution's credibility to proffer him or herself as accepted within Christianity -- perhaps even as Christian -- then that Christian institution has done a great disservice to the Faith.

The Real Antithesis Hour Final Show

2011-06-14T21:53:00.000-07:00

The Real Antithesis Hour will have presented 9 podcasts covering the definition and difference between Hyper (or Full) Preterism and historic Christian positions. I want to invite the many listeners to tune in June 16th Thursday for the final show in the series.

The final show will briefly cover the issue of the End of Sin and then wrap up with posing some specific questions to the full/hyperpreterist guest-host, RiversOfEden about his consistent variation of hyperpreterism and how it impacts daily life.

I want to thank the listeners and RiversOfEden. I believe that this series is the only kind like it; since much of the hyperpreterist movement spends time rehashing the time-texts or banning people from their sites rather than interacting with issues. On the other side, many anti-hyperpreterist sites are also caught with drama and egotism.

RiversOfEden and I have attempted to cut out the weather/sports/good ole boy chit-chat and get right into the meat of the discussion every week. We greatly appreciate all of the excellent listener questions and feedback. We may do more podcasts in the future but independent of this series. The series has served its purpose. Thanks again.

God bless and keep you,
Roderick Edwards

Mormons And Hyperpreterists: What's the Difference?

2011-06-03T19:12:00.000-07:00

I have often made the connection that hyperpreterism is no more "Christian" than is Mormonism. Mormons ALSO appeal to Scripture. It has never been an issue about who does and doesn't read the Bible. Of course Mormons and Hyperpreterists read the Bible. The issue is INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Hyperpreterists like to ignore the presupposition that God sustains basic truth and the basic understanding of that truth, and even more especially among the New Covenant which has Jesus coming and revealing and explaining what the Old Covenant saints only saw in type and shadow behind the veil of Moses. If God doesn't sustain basic understanding of truth among Christians, then at any point along can come a charlatan boasting to have better understood God more than any other men ever in Christianity. Isn't this in effect what hyperpreterism claims???

Christianity Before and After AD70

2011-05-31T20:13:00.000-07:00

Hyperpreterists have a major difficulty explaining why for 2000 years, Christianity through all its various expressions has been UNITED on the basics of eschatology. There have been a variety of attempts by hyperpreterists to downplay that perhaps the MOST SETTLED doctrine of Christianity is basic eschatology. Some examples of hyperpreterists tactics on this matter are:

A 2000-year long coverup or conspiracy.
1st-century rapture that took away people who would have held to hyperpreterism.
Trace-citations of theologians who sound like they might be hyperpreteristic.
Post Ad70 Christians too stupid to realize what happened.

No matter which of these explanations hyperpreterists try to use, any of them result in an ineffective and an incompotent God who was either unable or unwilling to maintain the most basic understanding of His eschatological plan among His New Covenant people. Some hyperpreterists are also okay with that outcome.

Read more »

Thank You Jason Bradfield

2011-05-31T18:04:00.000-07:00

Jason Bradfield, long-time hyperpreterist and perhaps the guy who has helped many of the modern crop of hyperprets set up their websites, recently recanted the heresy. Bradfield has been a long-time "hater" of me and continues to hate my guts to this day. He recently posted a reply to a thread I started at CARM. What follows is my interaction with Bradfield's comments. Before you read this interaction, please know I am very happy that Bradfield has left the heresy of hyperpreterism behind. I hope in time he will leave behind his general rudeness.

Read more »

Take It From the New Guard

2011-05-23T20:01:00.000-07:00

For the longest time, it was just a few of us fighting against hyperpreterism from the INSIDE. Sure, Dee Dee Warren of PreteristBlog.com had been fighting the heresy and she should be commended for the great work she has done, but she wasn't ever really within the movement. But what is strange is a new crop opposing hyperpreterism has come to the fore. Lots of ex-hyerpreterists such as Jason Bradfield (who left before his mentor Sam Frost by the way), Sam Frost and some others. This new crop, perhaps at the instance of PaulT (PreteristBlog's new mouthpiece) is called the "new guard". PaulT likes to call me the "old guard". That's okay I guess since the Bible says "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls." - Jer 6:16a.

Besides the "new guards" AREN'T saying anything different than the "old guards" have been saying all along. For example, I said:

Read more »

Stalled Starting Points

2011-05-18T18:51:00.000-07:00

The Hyperpreterists are in a tailspin. As more and more high-profile people leave the movement, some hyperpreterists are eager to tell us why -- whereas some like hyperpreterist leader Don Preston, does as he always does and ignores that his house is on fire.

One such hyperpreterist, known as John Hedges (aka "Prophet Whiteboy") has been trying to figure out what is going on. He plans to write a series of articles. Hedges asks and then states:

"Is Preterism heresy? Is preterism correct? These questions will be answered in hopefully no more than three articles with this being the first." -- source

The first issue is Hedges use of the term "preterism". What does he mean by it? There are certainly variations but hyperpreterists have taken to claim the term completely for themselves, thus muddying the discussion before it starts. Hedges really means HYPER or "Full Preterism".

Read more »

Gary DeMar's Answer Realized As Wrong

2011-05-14T07:32:00.000-07:00

After years of seeing his mentors and peers coddle hyperpreterism as "not a heresy" (as Gary DeMar claimed), ex-hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost FINALLY and plainly states what I've been saying for some time:

"I have, now, come to the conclusion that Full Preterism cannot be called 'Christian.' And, I say that with boldness. I was blind." -- source

Sam Popped The Bubble?

2011-04-29T19:40:00.000-07:00

I am glad to hear that former hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost has left the movement. And during his recent exchanges with one of his former proteges', Mike Bennett it appears Sam won't be straddling the fence anymore. He is even using terms like "historic Christian Faith" -- what I have been arguing for since the get go -- no modified "Realized Preterism" for me. But Sam STILL needs to check his ego. He recently claimed this:

"I have single handedly popped their Full Preterist bubble, and many have come out of this movement as a result." -- source

Really? So, the YEARS and YEARS of work by folks such as Ken Gentry, Dee Dee Warren, Todd Dennis, Vince Krivda, PaulT, and myself had no effect? Sam takes credit for "single-handedly" popping the Full Preterist bubble???

Granted, Sam had many followers that have left due to his leaving but I think that had less to do with his arguments (especially since his arguments -- about it being about presupposition -- is in reality MY ARGUMENT), it has more to do with cronyism. Sam's followers are simply following where he is going. Not all of them mind you, but some.

Now, I don't want to detract from what is happening. I don't really care what the impetus was for these folks leaving the heresy of hyperpreterism. I'm just glad they left. However, the hypocrisy of Sam berating my arguments for years and then turning around and acting like they were his arguments and he has single-handedly caused many to leave the movement -- that is just an insult to folks who have been combating the heresy longer than he has. Please Sam, have some humility.

UPDATE:

Okay, as more proof that Sam needs help checking his ego, on April 27th during a podcast with a hyperpret named Mike Loomis, Sam again takes credit for supposed increased traffic on hyperpreterist websites. The hyperpret host even tries to temper Sam's ego by correcting Sam's statement that the increased traffic is "probably" due to Sam. Listen to this 20 second mp3 file:

http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/default/files/allaboutsam.mp3

Sam And Jason Catch Up

2011-04-19T22:20:00.000-07:00

As readers may know, two high profile hyperpreterists recanted that heresy in 2010-2011 -- Jason Bradfield and Sam Frost. I have eagerly, yet painfully been following their transition out of the heresy. It is painful sometimes because they are JUST NOW seeing the things I have been trying to tell them for some time now. They wouldn't listen to me because of their irrational hatred for me. But oh well, so long as they leave that heresy.

Jason especially but also Sam have been writing some interesting articles. For example, Jason wrote an article called: Paul the Deceitful? where Jason points out that when the apostle Paul in Acts 26:3 associated his teaching of the Resurrection as the same as the Pharisees teaching, that Paul either taught the same thing; which is a physical resurrection of believers or Paul was being deceitful.

Now Jason may have thought he stumbled on a great silver bullet against hyperpreterism, but Jason is a bit late. In an article I wrote for PreteristBlog in June 2008 I pointed out:

"Lastly, when Paul spoke about the resurrection of the believers he claimed to be teaching the very same resurrection as the Pharisees (Acts 23:6-8). The question then is, what kind of resurrection did the Pharisees teach? Did the Pharisees teach a mere resurrection of the spirit or did they also advocate a resurrection of the physical body? (read here)

Even from the biblical sources about the Pharisees, it is obvious that they believed in a physical resurrection, otherwise it would be nonsense for the Sadducees to pose the question of, in the resurrection whose wife a woman would be after having customarily marrying the brother(s) of her deceased first husband & then eventually dying herself. (Mat 22:23-33, Lk 20:27-36)"

As much as I am excited to see Sam and Jason come to realize these things, it is painful and discouraging that neither of these men seem to have the humility to say, "Roderick, we were wrong to have constantly acted like you didn't know what you're talking about". Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say, "Ohhhh look at me! look at me! how smart am I?", rather I'd like to see just a bit of humility from these guys after the years and years of abuse I have had to endure from them. They may think; "Huh? abuse from us? Roderick you constantly were coming at us". Yes I was, with the kind of articles you see in June 2008 AND with articles calling on them to stop being arrogant...a side effect of hyperpreterism. Anyhow, I'm glad Sam and Jason are catching up.
Read more »

PaulT Corrects Phil Naessens and Dr. Kenneth Talbot

2011-04-13T04:35:00.000-07:00

Hyperpreterist compromiser, Phil Naessens has for a long time allowed himself to be depicted as a "brother in Christ" with Hyperpreterists. Most recently, in promotion of a co-hosted podcast Naessens allows hyperpreterist Mike Loomis to say about Loomis and Naessens:

"The purpose of this program is to demonstrate how two brothers in Christ can disagree agreeably." -- source

Further, Dr. Kenneth Talbot has long called hyperpreterists "brother".

But on April 12, 2011 one of Naessens and Talbot's buddies, PaulT Gates unwittingly admonished Naessens and Talbot (about time).

"Loomis is suggesting hyperpreterism’s future lies in something similar to the Liberalism of the 19th century hyperpreterism is clearly a different religion than Christianity. Thus the only claim a hyperpreterist has to being a brother with a Christian is that they are a brother in Adam, not in Christ." -- source

Of course PaulT will probably claim that Naessens and Talbot are either exempt from this correction or try to spin it so that Naessens and Talbot haven't really compromised in depicting themselves as "brothers" in Christ with Hyperpreterists.
Read more »

Antithesis Hour 0002 - Time-Texts

2011-04-07T22:09:00.000-07:00

The second episode of the REAL Antithesis Hour will be recorded Thursday April 7th and uploaded by the 8th. During this show the hosts, Roderick Edwards and RiversOfEden will open the "mailbag" and discuss feedback from the first episode. We'll also address some of the latest developments.

TIME-TEXTS DISCUSSED
Mt 10:23
Mt 16:27-28

Listen to this podcast:
See how REAL antithesis works. To download to your mp3 device or computer -- right click HERE and SAVEAS.
Or listen using the player below.

Sam Frost STILL doesn't know what he is talking about

2011-04-07T05:07:00.000-07:00

Sam Frost, a supposed ex-hyperpret who has yet to actually put into action his comment that "Full preterism is incompatible with Christianity", since he continues to act like hyperpreterists are his "brothers in Christ"; recently said:

"This is why Roderick’s argument would never work. To deal with any error, you have to deal with exegesis. You have to first expose the presuppositions as false." -- source

Huh??? Sam "Roderick's argument" all along has been that we have to first expose the presuppositions as false.

This was the big debate between me and your mentor, Dr. Kenneth Talbot. If you knew what you're talking about, you'd know this.

Here's the evidence. In an interaction with Talbot, now deleted by Talbot's supporters from its original source, not surprisingly so, I SPECIFICALLY point out that FACT that we have to first expose the presuppositions as false.

"Thank you Dr. Talbot for asking the questions. Yes, you are correct -- ALL STATEMENTS ARE PROPOSITIONAL -- that is exactly the point and why I like to deal first and foremost with the proposition of an argument BEFORE I get into the so-called "evidence/exegesis". The overarching proposition of historic Christianity is that God is sovereign, in complete control. God has planned and decreed things, not just let them haphazardly unfold for anyone to take up." - source

The sad but humorous part is that then Talbot after attempting to berate me, restates MY ARGUMENT as if it was his (much like Sam is doing now).

"Roderick, when the hyperpreterists state that they "start with the Bible" as Dr. Clark use to say, "that is commendable." However, that means nothing! They come with presuppositional dogma that forces them to skew exegetical studies, twist the Scriptures with "bad" hermeneutics, and then with a boldness that boast on the side of arrogance, they assert that they alone have the "key" to the "truth which unlocks the knowledge of God about the whole Bible which has been misinterpreted and everything needs to be tweaked to get it right."

Um....? Yeah, exactly my point. Hyperpreterism is about their presuppositional dogma which drives EVERYTHING else they believe. We must therefore deal with that presuppositional situation.

I just get so sick of all the falsehoods spewed not only by the hyperprets but by the Talbotites....and then they are too cowardly to interact directly and be challenged BY SOURCE LINKED FACTS. Instead they ban and bluff and bloat about.
Read more »

This Is How To Leave A Heresy

2011-04-05T16:45:00.000-07:00

I started this blog in December 2007 to UNDO what I had done by teaching and advocating the heresy of Hyper/Full Preterism. At the time, I was ridiculed by the hyperpreterists but now we see more and more high-profile people leaving the hyperpreterist movement. One such person is Jason Bradfield, whom anyone can tell you doesn't count me as a friend...even now. However I am constantly amazed how the Lord Jesus Christ works. Listen to this podcast Jason did and you will see he too sees the need to UNDO what he has done. There is no sweeping his past under the rug, or modifying his "preterism" into a "Chilton kind" or any such nonsense. Further, Jason understands and doesn't back down from the FACT that people who advocate hyperpreterism actually are deluded and need to repent of advocating it. Jason has stuck to his guns on this even after the perennial mushy-gushy hyperpreterist, Larry Siegle tried to lay on Jason with Larry's typical syncreticism.

Another thing that is important to note is that my ferocious opposition to men like Dr. Kenneth Talbot and Phil Naessens was in-line with what Jason is NOW saying -- I mean, if hyperpreterism is as distorted as Jason (and his mentor Sam Frost) are NOW saying; then men like Talbot and Naessens should have NEVER given it even a whiff of validation (by calling hyperpreterists "brothers" and such). So, whether Jason and Sam and some of these others are ever friendly towards me, perhaps they can NOW understand why hyperpreterism SHOULD be so ferociously opposed -- especially by men of the stature of Talbot. It continually broke my heart to see Talbot give ANY validation toward this heresy and thereby perhaps causing men like Jason to remain in it longer than he did.

Anyhow, take a few moments to listen to what Jason says NOW. It is a blessing.

Read more »

Refuting Hyperpreterism: Presupposition VS Proof-text

2011-04-01T13:30:00.000-07:00

After YEARS of hyperpreterists AND defenders of hyperpreterists (like Phil Naessens and Kenneth Talbot) criticizing me for CONSTANTLY pointing out that we should be battling hyperpreterism based on its presupposition rather than its proof-texts, former hyperpreterist Sam Frost AGREES with my approach. In a podcast aired March 30, 2011 Frost said:

"You can proof-text all day long. Anybody can proof-text Scripture and support their view. It's the PRESUPPOSITIONS, that's what you've got to attack. That's what you have to go over." -- Sam Frost (31 sec audio)

So what is the presupposition of Hyperpreterism?????? That God has been unable or unwilling to sustain truth and the basic understanding of truth for 2000 years. Folks THAT is the presupposition of the Full/Hyperpreterist position, no matter how they try to spin it. They MUST believe God failed. They can't say, "No, no men failed in not comprehending or in distorting God's basic eschatological plan." Ultimately God is the sustainer of truth and by the hyperpreterist presupposition, God has failed.

Now, will Sam Frost, Kenneth Talbot, Jason Bradfield, Phil Naessens and all of these people take back claiming I am a "slanderer"? No, because that would take some real humility and I just don't think they have it in them. It's good and well that Frost can say things like the quote above but never would they acknowledge THAT is what I've been saying ALL ALONG.
Read more »

Antithesis Hour 0001 - Defining Hyperpreterism

2011-03-28T21:08:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the very first episode of The (NEW) Antithesis Hour with your host Roderick Edwards. In these hour long podcasts we will tackle no holds barred, controversial issues. No kid-gloves. No wishy-washy relativism. No good-ole buddy chats about sports and weather. When you tune in, you will get a full dose of pitting one view against another.

Historic Christianity VS Hyperpreterism Series

First up on the docket is Historic Christianity versus Hyperpreterism. Hyperpreterism, as agreed even by Hyperpreterists is a view that advocates 4 main views that are diametrically opposed to the historic Christian view.

Hyperpreterism advocates (in varying degrees):

Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century
The collective resurrection of believers happened in the 1st-century
The Judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century
There will be no end of sin/nor culmination of God's plan

I will be joined by perhaps the most consistent Hyperpreterist, a man who goes by the pseudonym of "Rivers of Eden". We will begin by defining our terms so that neither of us can wriggle around later in upcoming episodes.

In this episode we discuss:

The agreed definition of heresy (see Rom 16:17)
Grammatical, etymological, and historically accurate labels of the various kinds of "Preterism".
Basic distinctives of Full or Hyperpreterism.
Introduction to next episode: TIME-TEXTS

So, sit back and see how REAL antithesis works. To download to your mp3 device or computer -- right click HERE and SAVEAS.
Or listen using the player below.

Roderick On The Narrow Mind with Gene Cook Jr.

2011-03-25T19:17:00.000-07:00

Some people have been asking me where they can listen to the podcast interview I did with Gene Cook Jr. in 2007. Here it is in an easy player (right click here and SAVEAS to download to your computer or mp3 device):

	Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. - Leaving Full Preterism TNM #897 .mp3

	Found at bee mp3 search engine

Another Cultic Hyperpreterist Site

2011-03-22T19:08:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: This update is being posted AFTER the original article that follows, since I think it is important to encourage people whenever they show honesty and integrity.

Ken Palmer, the admin of the site in question, recently posted this apology:

"I want to extend my sincerest apologies for mishandling certain individuals in which I care very much about, and believe that they too need a place to discuss, contend and reproof theirs, and many of the ideas, circulating through the network of Christianity...My wish is that through their forgiveness, they can come feel at ease coming to Covenant Preterism and reactivate their interest in discussion." -- source

Mr. Palmer should be commended for this rare show of humility among the Hyperpreterist community. Unfortunately as soon as Mr. Palmer posted this unqualified apology (and even used the word "forgiveness" which some people don't do when they "apologize"), another Hyperpreterist soiled the apology by posting this:

"You have nothing to apologise for. Lessons to learn maybe (like the rest of us), but nothing to be sorry for. Like the rest of us you’re on a journey, none of us have all the answers, and never will, and you’re doing your best for where you’re ‘currently’ at (as are we all)." -- source

Really? Can this guy get anymore wishy-washy and syncretic? I mean, this is part of the issue with hyperpreterism in the first place. Its overarching premise is that God failed to sustain truth and the understanding of truth until along comes men like Max King. If we are all really just groping around in the dark hoping we'll trip over truth then what good is a "religion" like that? At this rate, these sites should be renamed Emergent/Postmodern Preterism because that is how it is being presented. Anyhow, although I accept Mr. Palmer's apology and forgive him. I no longer have the desire to interact on that site. I hope Mr. Palmer the best...and by the best I mean him leaving the heresy of Hyperpreterism some day.

In the Hyperpreterist movement, what typically happens is little camps or factions form around a particular teaching or "teacher". This has given us the Max King/Tim King faction with their "Presence/Transmillennial" website and its humanistic agenda. ("the world is new, thus man is new") This faction mentality has given us the postmodernist/Emergent hyperpreterism promoted by Virgil Vaduva until it more or less died in the early 2000. It gave us the 1st-century rapture faction of Ed Stevens, Walt Hibbard and others. It gave us the pseudo-Reformed faction (until Sam Frost bolted) which is now in a tailspin. And lastly, the "Covenant Creationists" faction of Tim Martin, Jeff Vaughn, Tami Jelinek and others.

These factions are good at banning each other from their various websites. What has happened from time to time is that then those ran off go and start yet ANOTHER site and then hypocritically enough, invoke the SAME exclusionary policies that the administrators of the other hyperpreterist sites used to ban them.

Such a case happened when hyperpreterist Ken Palmer and some of his fellow hyperpreterists were either ran off, banned or left...um..."voluntarily" from hyperpreterist websites that would not allow them to talk about topics like anti-Trinitarianism, cessation of institutional church structures and things like that.

Read more »

Hyperpret Bryan Lewis Explains Why "Realized Preterism" Won't Work

2011-03-15T23:35:00.000-07:00

As readers may be aware, there has been a long time contention that Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Theological Seminary has been attempting to insert his own "Reformed" brand of "Preterism" into the movement. With a movement that already has so many labels for different kinds of "preterism" -- "Partial-Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Full Preterism, Hyper-Preterism" -- Talbot's new brand seemed likely to be a welcomed addition to the smorgasbord. Talbot called his brand, "Realized Preterism". Although, official and public details about what his brand of preterism entailed has yet to be released, some Full/Hyper-Preterists received it as merely a stepping stone to eventual Full/Hyper-Preterism.

Mike Bennet, a Hyper-Preterist social-site admin and friend of Sam Frost once said about Realized Preterism:

"Here is what I see happening as a general path to FULL PRETERISM.
Arminian => Dispy => Reformed => Ammilenial => Partial Preterist => Preterist Idealist => Realized Preterist (soon to complete the path) => Full Preterist" -- source

AD70.net Calls In Don Preston to Shill For Money

2011-03-08T17:53:00.000-08:00

After many times begging people to send him money, Mike Loomis the hyperpreterist owner of the hyperpreterist podcast network, AD70.net finally called in the movement's resident "used carsalesman-like" Don Preston. In a 9 minute video; Don Preston urged people to stop supporting "futurist" ministries and churches and instead start sending their money to Loomis.

In the video, Preston claims that the idea that the hyperpreterist movement isn't growing isn't true. This directly contradicts the recent former hyperpreterist teacher, Sam Frost who says the movement ISN'T growing.

FROST QUOTE:

"This is the big deception. It's not "growing". Oh, sure, one here, and one there. And, "Preterism" is not "Full Preterism". Two different systems entirely. Preterism is entirely orthodox. Full Preterism goes way off the reservation. Most church folks have never even heard of Full Preterism. Conduct your own poll." 3/7/2011 (facebook)

Which is it?

That Loomis had to bring out the big gun shows that Loomis is getting desperate. He has openly said he has sunk over $10,000.00 into his hyperpreterist podcast network; all the while not having a day job. His family has to be feeling the squeeze. Loomis is otherwise unemployed. If he can't get his fellow hyperpreterists to support him, his venture will probably go the way of "preterist churches" (as Frost's and Preston's "churches" failed to grow -- ref, hear Preston in his own words).

Read more »

New Antithesis Hour Announced

2011-03-07T19:38:00.000-08:00

TKC will be starting a new podcast series. The inspiration for this new podcast series comes from a failed podcast program of the same name. Why would a failed program inspire a new podcast? The reason the previous program failed, was because first it really was NOT presenting opposing views. Most of the time, the two participants spent more time trying to advance some mediocre middle-ground. Secondly, they spent more time attacking their common enemies rather than critiquing each others view.

So, seeing how badly those participants handled what could have been a good concept, this podcast was born so that we may attempt to do it right. With this in mind, the first series of "The Antithesis Hour" will examine the differences between the traditional Christian view and what is often called "Full" or "Hyper-Preterism. To discuss this topic, I am pleased to announce that joining me is a fellow who even many with the HP movement consider the "most consistent" representative. This gentleman, for his privacy and protection goes by the pseudonym of RiversOfEden.

I want to make the promise to the listeners that they will get a full hour of putting opposing views to the test. Not 50 minutes of buddies chit-chatting about sports or the weather and only 10 minutes of vague, undeveloped opposition. We will do all of this with clear, agreed upon definitions and without either of us threatening to sue the other for imagined "personal attack" or "slander". We won't water down anything but at the same time remain civil.

So, if you want to see opposing view put to the test -- for REAL -- join us. Maybe in the future, we can have other discussions with other guests on topics such as Calvinism vs Arminianism or Institutional Church vs Home Church.

We hope to start this series by April 2011. Thank you for your time. We look forward to having you join us.

Jason Bradfield Story: Analysis of an Ex-Heretic

2011-03-01T21:43:00.000-08:00

First, when people hear the word "heretic" or "heresy" they often feel some pity or sympathy for the person being called a heretic. Perhaps it is human nature to feel sorry for and root for the underdog. But is there EVER a right time to describe something as a heresy and the person advocating it a heretic?

To start, we must define what we mean by heresy. In the Christian sense, heresy is NOT simply something that goes against the teaching of those in control. Again, people often visualize the "big bad institutional church"forcing people to believe what the institution is teaching or else be labelled a heretic. However, to correctly define heresy we must decouple ourselves from the idea that the "church" is corrupt and trying to impose beliefs on the poor "followers". This wrong idea, may be a misunderstanding of Protestantism, where a person envisions themselves as a "little Martin Luther" taking on the Roman Catholic Church.

DEFINITION OF HERESY

The text in the Bible that perhaps most succinctly defines heresy is Romans 16:17-18.

Assessing the Jason and Sam Show

2011-02-17T20:38:00.000-08:00

Jason Bradfield and Sam Frost, long time hyperpreterists have claimed to recanted the heresy but many doubt that at least Frost has really left the movement. What follows is the first podcast done by Jason and Sam AFTER they supposedly gave up "full preterism". I assess what they ACTUALLY say on the podcast and have ACTUALLY said in the past. Listen to this 40 minute podcast here:

Download right click link and SAVEAS

Read more »

AD70.net And Preterist Hypocrisy

2011-02-08T23:02:00.001-08:00

The 3rd in a series of podcasts with Hyper/Full Preterist 'Rivers of Eden' often, reluctantly considered the most consistent advocate of the Hyper/Full Preterist view. Rivers of Eden (ROE), discusses how the hyperpreterist movement, and especially AD70.net has hypocritically taken actions to silence his input into the community.

Listen to this podcast as it touches on the current state within the 'preterist movement'.

LISTEN to the Podcast

Right click this link and download to your computer or mp3 device: link
Left click this link to listen now on your computer's audio device: link
Listen via the podcast page here at TKC (best for slow connections)
Listen using the player below

River's/ROE welcomes continued interaction.
Contact "Rivers of Eden" via email: riversofeden4@gmail.com

REFERENCES

Other Podcasts in this series

Mike Loomis quotes:

"Over the last number of months I personally came very close to embracing this position. I didn’t just flirt with it…I quite literally put it on to see if it would fit. I was even beginning to tell people that I was sure it was right...Seriously…I was ready to call myself a Hyper-Preteristi. Everything fit in the box very well. No more questions unanswered. But then the questions began to arise as I started considering the implications of this position. And then there is the question of what the universal Church has been doing for the last 2000 years. Have we been worshiping a god that has no interest outside the tribes of Israel?...If anyone wants to pursue HP that is fine. But it scared the hell out of me....If it’s true…No matter how much good has come from 2000 years of Church history…It’s all been based on a false premise. ROE is a good friend. I’ve learned a lot from him. However…I think he has gone too far." -- source

"What he is suggesting might not be an easy pill to swallow and it might not even be the right one…But that doesn’t change the fact that he has been and continues to allow the Word to direct him wherever the truth might lead.

And the one thing I appreciate the most about him is that his posts are supported solely by scripture. No tradition…No creeds…Just the scriptures interpreting themselves and utilizing the original languages in support of his views...I want to follow the Truth wherever it may lead me. I want to test all things. Whether the journey is comfortable or not…The Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation." -- source

The State Of Preterism: 2010-2011

2011-01-27T09:56:00.000-08:00

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".

Read more »

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

2011-01-23T11:00:00.001-08:00

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

2011-01-20T21:17:00.001-08:00

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:

Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century.
The collective resurrection of believers happened in the 1st-century.
The Judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century.
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?

2011-01-09T14:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Jason Bradfield (aka kingneb) Says...

2010-12-30T22:13:00.000-08:00

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".
Read more »

How Many Well-meaning People Become Heretics

2010-12-28T13:36:00.000-08:00

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?
Read more »

Ex-Hyperpret Leader Says Hyperpreterism Isn't Christian

2010-12-26T18:22:00.000-08:00

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.

The Wilson-Gentry Method To Combating Hyperpreterism

2010-12-19T18:45:00.000-08:00

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!

Read more »

Preterist News Series

2010-12-11T22:24:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-11T22:12:00.000-08:00

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.

Read more »

Types of Preterists Reviewed

2010-12-11T22:10:00.001-08:00

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.
Read more »

Onus Probandi - Samuel Frost M.A.R.

2010-12-11T22:09:00.000-08:00

Hyperpreterist 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.

Read more »

Hyperpret Rejects 'Sola Scriptura'

2010-12-11T22:07:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

When The Compromisers Come: Contra Mundum

2010-12-11T22:05:00.001-08:00

The 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.

Read more »

Creedalized Hyperpreterism?

2010-12-11T22:04:00.001-08:00

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.
Read more »

'Orthodox Preterism' Goes Postmodern

2010-12-11T22:03:00.000-08:00

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".

Read more »

The Unqualified Apologist?

2010-12-11T22:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Read more »

Axiomatic Case For God's Sustaining

2010-12-11T22:01:00.000-08:00

An 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.

Read more »

A Clarkian Fails Again

2010-12-11T21:59:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

Scripture and Full/Hyperpreterism

2010-12-11T21:58:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

House Divided; Interaction with Pages 102-109

2010-12-11T21:57:00.001-08:00

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:
Read more »

Hyperpreterist Buffet: A little here and a little there

2010-12-11T21:55:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

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

2010-12-11T21:54:00.002-08:00

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

2010-12-11T21:54:00.000-08:00

[caption id="attachment_2105" align="alignleft" width="200" caption="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).

Read more »

Hyperpreterism's Impact on the Function of the Holy Spirit

2010-12-11T21:52:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

Preterist Radio Failing?

2010-12-11T21:51:00.001-08:00

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).

Read more »

How Hyperpreterism Affects the Atonement

2010-12-11T21:50:00.001-08:00

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.

Read more »

Sincerity Rarity Among Hyperpreterism

2010-12-11T21:49:00.001-08:00

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:

Claim some sort of 'trace' form of preterism that supposedly always has existed in historic Christianity (yet no such form exists).
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
Ridicule the question as an appeal to Roman Catholicism ("Eckwardian")
Ignore the question and redirect (such as trying to have a discussion over 'time-statements')

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

2010-12-11T21:48:00.000-08:00

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
Read more »

The 'Roderick Edwards Argument' Takes Down Hyperpreterists?

2010-12-10T20:07:00.000-08:00

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

Answering Hyperpreterists

2010-12-02T01:29:00.000-08:00

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;

a group of Jews/Israelites settled in America pre-Columbus.
that Jesus' statement in John 10:16 of having "other sheep" was a veiled reference to those supposed Jews in America.
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").

The Martin Luther of Hyperpreterism: Rivers Responds

2010-11-26T21:39:00.000-08:00

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:

Jesus came back once in for all in the first-century (AD70).
The collective resurrection of believers occurred in the first-century.
The judgment of the wicked and righteous occurred in the first-century.
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.
Read more »

The Christian Exegesis of The Resurrection

2010-11-23T21:47:00.000-08:00

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:

Read more »

Hyperpreterist "Exegesis"?

2010-11-22T18:24:00.000-08:00

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?

Read more »

AD70.net Quietly Pulls The Plug?

2010-11-20T10:26:00.000-08:00

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 AD70.net. 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 AD70.net Hollywood CA - November 22, 2010 - Prison Minister, author and former radio host Marty Angelo has to stop broadcasting his weekly radio show on AD70.net. 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

2010-11-19T21:32:00.001-08:00

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.

Should Christians Root Against Hyperpreterism?

2010-10-17T12:24:00.000-07:00

I was amazed to hear a supposed "Christian elder" recently appear on a hyperpreterist hosted podcast and chastise Christians for "rooting" against the heresy.

This occurred Oct 13, 2010 when supposed Christian elder, Phil Naessens said on a hyperpreterist podcast called ironically enough "The Antithesis Hour" that:

"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?"

Then the hyperpreterist host, Mike Loomis goes into how people have rooted that his podcast fails (implying a reference to my article here). Yet Naessens never backs off his comments or clarifies that it would be okay to root for heresy to fail...because Naessens doesn't really think hyperpreterism is heresy (except perhaps with a little "h")

Hear the clip: http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/defa...essensclip.mp3

What does Naessens want then? For hyperpreterism to succeed?

Read more »

PSA To Preterists Everywhere

2010-10-13T19:13:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd put out a PSA (public service announcement) for those preterists who may be living under a rock somewhere. Things have changed, and I don't mean just at AD70. Things have changed (or maybe gone back to the way it was) within the preterist movement. Gone are the days when you could criticize a preterist who was advocating Emergentism, or Universalism, or Covenant Creationism.

You see, now that Sam Frost is redefining all of you "wacko" preterists (Sam's words) as the REAL hyperpreterists (see here), people like Mike Bennett who had built his reputation on being the most vocal opponent of the "Covenant Creationism" preterists is going to really have to tone that down. In Frost's new "fuller full preterism" (ie Realized Preterism wink wink) everyone is going to be accepted as long as you be nice to Frost. I know it seems contradictory to say some preterists are going to be considered the REAL hyperpreterists AND that under the new "fuller full preterism" there is going to be more "ecumenicism" but that is only because it is a FAKE ecumenicism that only goes as far as Frost and company allow.

I just wanted to help you preterists who will soon find yourselves lumped in with the likes of Dave Green...after all, according to Ward Fenley, Green is "as mean as they come". Join Frost (and Talbot, as the "superpreterist" -- his undercover name he has used on blogs) as they reshape the movement into a kinder, gentler movement where people like Virgil Vaduva (Brian McLaren's clone -- see pic) and his gay friends will be accepted as "brothers" (see here). Act now and get a 8x10 glossy of Mike Loomis for a "donation" of $5 or more, to help support the preterist "radio" that helps promote this "new kind of preterism".

Read more »

A Skeptic Admits Using Preterism to Attack Christianity

2010-09-30T18:50:00.000-07:00

On CARM (a Christian message board), I responded to a "skeptic" that not only had some very sincere questions but he admitted to using preterism to attack Christianity. That response is as follows:

Originally Posted byDecypher

So preterists will sometimes say that they are "giving an answer" to the skeptic. Are they? In a way, obviously they give an "answer" of a sort. That is, they are putting forward a scenario under which Jesus' prophecy would have been fulfilled.

Thanks Decy for bringing this out. You have touched on the heart of the problem. For "Preterists" (hyper and partials) to make a claim that 2,000 years of historic Christian interpretation on endtimes/eschatology has supposedly been in gross error, is indeed an "answer" of sorts. But it is an undermining answer from both the hyper and the partial. I mean, suppose I was making the case for adhering to American principles of free-market capitalism but I claimed that all the historic "fore-fathers" of America didn't adhere or advocate free-market capitalism but instead socialism or communism. How would that affect my case?

Preterists do the same thing. They claim to appeal to the Bible but then claim that the God of the Bible has for whatever reason, been unable or unwilling to maintain the most basic correct understanding of His eschatological plan among His people. What then makes a Preterist (of any sort), think the Bible has been maintained? Further, why would a skeptic trust a God that can't either convey or maintain His most basic plans???

Read more »

Whitefield Theological Seminary and Kenneth Talbot Now and Then

2010-09-23T21:16:00.000-07:00

As readers may know, I have had a 2 year-disagreement with Dr. Kenneth Talbot and his supporters. This disagreement STARTED when I first approached Dr. Talbot in late 2008, asking why his seminary (Whitefield Theological Seminary - WTS) was utilizing a well-known hyperpreterist leader (Sam Frost) to edit their students materials, and if Dr. Talbot and WTS considered hyperpreterism to be heresy.

This was the reply at the time:

"Whitefield Theological Seminary does not promote Full (Hyper) Preterism. Whitefield Theological Seminary maintains that Full (Hyper) Preterism is a ‘very dangerous’ theological error. Further, some Full (Hyper) Preterists may be heretical pending on their other doctrines as it relates to God, Christ, Man, and Salvation. Each individual would need to be interviewed for me to make that determination." -- http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=1307

As you can see, it is non-committal that an entire system is heretical and instead wants to pick and choose individuals within that system, probably because Talbot wanted to find a way to claim Frost wasn't heretical even though he was/is a main leader of the entire movement.

Read more »

Nothing Is Heresy to Gary DeMar

2010-09-23T19:09:00.000-07:00

Gary DeMar has been repeatedly asked if "full preterism/hyperpreterism" is heresy. Every time, DeMar either gives a vague, not-committal answer or actually has come out and said, "No" he doesn't think it is heresy (as he did when hyperpret leader Sam Frost asked DeMar on the Narrow Mind radio show here: http://www.preteristsite.com/mp3/demarwithfrost.mp3 --transcript: "personally I do not consider it heretical because, you know like some say this is the Hymenaen heresy, and of course you don't deny the Resurrection" -- as if that is the only thing that causes it to be heretical).

DeMar was again recently asked via email (by an atheist) if he thinks full/hyperpreterism is heresy and here is how DeMar replied:

Read more »

An Interaction with Hyperpreterist Jerry Bowers

2010-09-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

Jerry Bowers Jr. is a fellow who came on the hyperpreterist scene in about 2006. He didn't make a huge splash and was soon rejected by Ward Fenley and others as simply a guy who was trying to proffer his own version of "full preterism". Jerry's intent becomes clear upon reading an article he wrote in 2010 called "Beyond Religion, Beyond Christianity & Beyond Full Preterism" (source). Jerry wants to move "beyond" not just "full preterism" but beyond Christianity.

Upon reading Jerry's article, you will notice that while in jail he says he read and read one book of the Bible over and over; the book of Revelation. Is it then no wonder Jerry concluded some very unbalanced beliefs? He read the last book of the Bible without having the context of everything that came before.

Jerry added a live chat window to his article, so I decided to engage him one day and here is the result of that discussion. I am "Vistor3" (vistor is the default name given so I was not attempting to deceive Jerry). Before the discussion is over, Jerry figures out it is me anyhow, since I've had previous discussions with him. See discussion after READ MORE

Read more »

Hyperpreterists Then and Now

2010-09-08T20:00:00.000-07:00

How Hyperpreterism Affects the Atonement

2010-08-23T20:48:00.000-07:00

How Hyperpreterists Attempt to Go Mainstream

2010-08-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

Hyperpreterist Buffet: A little here and a little there

2010-07-15T20:08:00.000-07:00

Consistent Conclusions of Full/Hyperpreterism

2010-06-08T00:14:00.001-07:00

This podcast discusses what a consistent application of Full/Hyperpreterism might look like. Roderick is joined by a Full/Hyperpreteristⁱ using the Internet pseudonym, "Rivers Of Eden". Rivers has used many of the common Full/Hyperpreterist teachings to conclude that God redeemed His Elect (genetic Abrahamic offspring only) in the year AD70 and no longer has any biblically expressed plan for people on earth after AD70.
Read more »