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

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"

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???

Another Ex-Hyperpreterist -- Praise Christ Jesus

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??

Don Preston Won't Debate His Own

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.

Jason Bradfield Reveals Why Sam Frost Left The Hyperpreterist Movement

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).

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

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

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"?

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:

Hyperpret Larry Siegle Responds

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:

1. "designed specifically to train men for the office of minister."
2. "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.

Hyperpreterism and Communism

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.

Whitefield Theological Seminary Continues To Validate Heresy

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

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?

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

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:

1. A 2000-year long coverup or conspiracy.
2. 1st-century rapture that took away people who would have held to hyperpreterism.
3. Trace-citations of theologians who sound like they might be hyperpreteristic.
4. 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.

Thank You Jason Bradfield

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.

Take It From the New Guard

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:

Stalled Starting Points

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".

Gary DeMar's Answer Realized As Wrong

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?

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

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.

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.

Antithesis Hour 0002 - Time-Texts

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

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.

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.