Interview
DDW by Roderick Edwards
Plain Text/Printer Friendly Version
1/08: Praise God! Roderick is no longer a hyperpreterist. This page is preserved only for its use in interacting with current hyperpreterists and not as any criticism of Roderick. For more details on Roderick's change, please read my blog entry Let Us Praise God Together on our Knees - also please see Is Hyper-Preterism Dying Before Our Eyes ~ reflecting on Todd Dennis' rejection of Hyper-Preterism.
Following is a link to an MP3 of an interview of myself by hyperpreterist Roderick Edwards. Roderick has given me permission to host this file here as my convictions will not allow me to send my readers to a hyperpreterist site for resource material if at all possible. Please read the introductory comments below which I will add to if additional information becomes available.
The interview is located here
A large issue discussed in this conversation (and it was a conversation, not a debate) was the historical meaning of the word "preterist." I made the statement, prefaced by the disclaimer that I have not yet done the primary historical research on the word that I would like to, that the word pre-dates the Reformation. That is my understanding at the time, and until this morning, I have never had anyone definitively dispute that information with counter-information. I have two things to add to that statement. The word "preterite" itself most surely pre-dates the Reformation; however, the context of the information I had (and no at this time I cannot remember where I ran into this information) is that the word was used to refer to Alcazar's work in the time (or close to) that he lived and wrote. However, with that in mind, Alcazar just post-dated the Reformation and did not pre-date the Reformation so that my statement should be amended accordingly. I knew that obviously since it is alleged that Alcazar's interpretation was contrived to avoid the conclusions of the Reformers that the Beast was the RCC or the Pope, but got my timeline muddled.
However, I did receive a comment in email that there was information that the word appeared first in this context in 1840. I asked that writer for that primary source information, and I ask any readers here for any primary source information on this that would nail this down more. Taking the most "young" date proffered of "1840" I believe my points still stand. In reading Farrar's comments, unless it is claimed that he coined the term (which I would be very very interested in reading), it seems pretty obvious that the terminology was already accepted in Christian writings as a theological term. I am more than willing to consider additional information and update my comments accordingly.
I also wanted to add something that I noted in listening back to the discussion that I didn't catch while we were talking - something that I am sure Roderick is doing as well because it is difficult in that type of medium to catch everything the other person is saying and be prepared to answer, at least I find it difficult. Roderick towards the end said he doesn't have an issue with me speaking towards, as my primary audience, those who already believe hyperpreterism is heretical. That is not though what I said, and I apologize to Roderick or the listener if I was unclear. My audience is those who think hyperpreterism is wrong to convince them that it is also foundationally heretical. There is a significant difference there. We all think other people are wrong on certain doctrines. We have to decide, however, if those errors are within the boundaries of the historic Christian faith so that doctrinal charity should be extended or whether the errors are of such an extreme character that they place the proponent outside the Christian faith. My writings are to the orthodox to persuade them that hyperpreterism is in the latter category, and I have been successful in that regard. I just wanted to make that clarification.
Two Weeks Later....
My blog entries have addressed some of the follow-up comments made at Roderick's site. While Roderick was a pleasure to deal with, some of the comments afterwards in their stark refusal to deal with the very limited points made and insistence on the "answer ME, ME, ME even though my points have been responded to a gazillion times before, I don't accept the answer so YOU must satisfy ME so I will pretend like nothing was ever said!" mindset from others reminds me why this event had never happened before and why I rarely interact with hyperpreterists (one reason only with the end result being the drywall in my house is the happier for it). If the actual points made were in fact dealt with without a rhetorical explosion that appears to be a practice in throwing the household at the wall and seeing what sticks it would have been a great deal more interesting. Anyhows, I thank Roderick very much for the discussion - that portion was very productive.