AD70.Net is Done?

Back in December 2010 this site considered that the hyperpreterist Internet "radio" station, AD70.net was failing. (source) The funding was sporadic and the idea that the station "owner", Mike Loomis could maintain the "station" while OBVIOUSLY neglecting his family...because of the time he was putting into it -- made the prediction that AD70.net would fail.  It is a noble thing to try to follow through with a noble dream and obviously will require some sacrifice -- for that I do not begrudge Loomis, although promoting hyperpreterism isn't noble. He was certainly following a dream, one that he had told us had been inspired by a man named Phil Naessens.  We have seen that Naessens has been destructive to other individuals (source), so that Loomis' misguided dream was inspired by Naessens is no small point.

But now Loomis has announced that he has lost everything over his misguided dream.  Loomis lost his finances and his wife. (source)  He says in his announcement:

"And quite frankly guys...I'm glad I'm at the end of my rope. And I'm not going to ask you guys for anything more. You've all done great helping keep P.R. on the air this long."

All my years in opposition to men like Loomis hasn't been so I could pat myself on the back or boast in proving them wrong.  It is sad to see things come to this end.  Maybe had men like Naessens spent less time validating Loomis, the misguided dream that destroyed Loomis' life would not have been "on the air this long".  I hold men like Naessens, Ken Talbot and other such compromisers and enablers directly responsible for the destruction of people's lives.  They toy with them as much as if they were toying with a drug addict instead of actually helping them.

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?

PaulT Corrects Phil Naessens and Dr. Kenneth Talbot

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.

This Is How To Leave A Heresy

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.

Refuting Hyperpreterism: Presupposition VS Proof-text

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.

An Example of an Example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Christians Root Against Hyperpreterism?

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?