Frosty the Strawman
by Dee Dee Warren

A response to Samuel Frost

Prologue

Some may mistakenly assume, in reading this response, that I do not get along with Samuel or that there is some long-standing feud between the two of us. This would be very far from the truth. Samuel is one of two hyperpreterists (the other being Roderick Edwards) with whom I have regular correspondence. This does mean that we do not get in each other's rhetorical faces. I firmly believe without reservation that Samuel is a teacher of poisonous heresy, and his ideas are treated as such. Samuel as a person, however, is a decent fellow human being, created in the image of God.

So what is the history behind this exchange? In brief, I had written a few articles addressing the issue of whether or not hyperpreterism should be considered heretical, and in a prior unrelated discussion, David Green made certain concessions regarding the same point to Keith Mathison. The details of these articles and the Green-Mathison debate will be discussed below. Unfortunately, Samuel mixed the two separate subjects into a huge gooey glob which is a key factor in the complete incomprehensibility and irrelevance of his piece.

Response Proper

Samuel Frost in his article, The Assumptions that Kill, (ooohh that's a nice scary name - be careful, I got a coffee table Bible, and I ain't scared to use it), attempts to refute my flagship article, Grave Heresy: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church while addressing my use of a quote by David Green. [1] I say "attempts to" because he doesn't really address THE issue (except inadvertantly), but he does manage to not address THE issue in more than 450 words, so Don Preston still wins the prize for concise obfuscation. [2] What is even more ironic about this whole thing is that Samuel already conceded my point via a blog entry nearly three months before my article was published. [3] However, a response makes the hyperpreterist crowd feel that at least Samuel knows how to respond; whether or not it is a good response becomes secondary. Of course the flaw in that system is that the main point I made in my article has been conceded not only by Samuel but also by John McPherson and David Green, with David's concession discussed in great detail below. [4] [5]

So let's get down to business. I will tackle Samuel's article point by point and quote him in full and in context. However, before doing so, it is necessary to take out of turn two statements by Samuel which will show firstly, why I am showing him the forked side of my tongue in this response, and secondly, why his piece is simply smoke and mirrors since it attempts to rebut a claim I never made, i.e. it is a classic strawman. I will additionally keep the extracted statements in their original context afterwards so that I cannot be accused of taking Samuel out of context. Samuel's statements will be set apart in boxed blockquotes and quotes of others will be set apart in plain indented blockquotes.

No doubt, if we were alive 500 years ago, Dee and Keith Mathison would be gathering up the sticks to burn us at the stakes (that's what they did with officially condemned heretics - Even Calvin had no problem with watching the heretic Servetus get his). I think of movies like Frankenstein, where the villagers are armed with torches and pitchforks. Well, today it is not so violent. That may be because it is against the law to kill heretics. I wonder what would happen, though, if these people were in power and heresy was a crime? I shudder, but enough ad misericordium [sic](look it up).

No doubt eh? Now that Samuel has established that he believes (or less strongly has no compunction against insinuating such in a tongue-in-cheek manner) that I have murderous intents only kept in check by force of law, the rest of his rant against not speaking ill of "brethren" (which he believes I am though I absolutely do not reciprocate) and the "dangers" of doing so are shown for the passive-aggressive nonsense that they are. Samuel has packed in this one paragraph more personal invective than I have ever raised or would raise against him. He has zero proof of this charge, he simply soils the moral landscape because he doesn't like my doctrinal position. By his own histrionical assertion, he has just broad-brushed anyone who has ever condemned anything as heresy. Is Arianism heresy? If Samuel thinks so, then I bet he would just love to BBQ a few JWs, right? No? This is a flat-out nonsenical ad hominen that has ZERO to do with the truth statement of my position. Samuel does in fact admit this with his phrase that he asks us to look up: ad misericordium[sic]. His statement definitely does fall under the rubric of a fallacious appeal to emotion, perhaps more specifically as a combination of an Argument ad Odium (i.e. appeal to spite), an Argument ad Misericordiam (i.e. appeal to misery/pity), and an Argumentum ad Metum (i.e. appeal to fear). This move is textbook passive-aggressive behaviour .... "oh well maybe I didn't really mean that" after the comment has been thrown out there.

The other point that I must bring out of turn is when Samuel states the following:

That is, if she can prove to [hyper - DDW] preterists....

Err, excuse me..... hello.... is thing on? This is the author of the article speaking. My article wasn't written to prove a single thing to hyperpreterists. It also wasn't written to prove a thing to Branch Davidians; therefore any complaint by a leftover follower of that cult that I have proven nothing to him has the exact same weight as Samuel's "requirement." None. Nada. Zilch. My article was written towards those with whom I already share certain starting presuppositions and to examine what our perspective MUST be, when taking into consideration OUR common presuppositions, towards those who hold hyperpreterist beliefs. Samuel not ONCE deals with this as my main thrust, and this is my whole point. I made this clear in the actual article. [6] My response to Samuel could end right now and adequately address him since the rest is a completely misplaced rant complaining that I failed to provide the basic elements of proof to the hyperpreterist that THEY should believe that their view is heretical to THEM, when in fact I wasn't trying to convince hyperpreterists of any such thing. Hyperpreterists were not my targeted audience and as far as they may exist as a third-party audience, the only thing to be proven is that within MY presuppositions and that of my intended audience, WE are compelled to view hyperpreterism as heresy. This is a huge difference. Keep that in mind as Samuel's comments are read. Consider the following quotes from within my subject writings:

First, in the Synopsis:

Is hyper-preterism merely yet another valid view within the spectrum of Christianity? How should the Church react when facing this radically different teaching? Is this a cause for Christian tolerance or doctrinal division? The Church has consistently held that certain core beliefs, including those denied by the hyper-preterists, are definitional and foundation to the Christian faith. Further, the Scripture gives specific examples demonstrating that serious errors regarding the resurrection are a line of demarcation for Christian faith and praxis. In the final analysis, this teaching cuts out the heart of redemption and is not acceptable as part of the spectrum of Christian faith.

And in the conclusion:

"...the narrow purpose of this apologetic was not to refute all of the arguments given by the hyper-preterists for their beliefs, but to provide down-to-earth Biblical support as to the necessary status of this belief system among the orthodox."

And in my older response to Don Preston: [7]

"The question for consideration here is whether or not it is correct for me to utilize the label of "Hymenaeanism" for their doctrine and identifying it as a potentially damnable heresy. In order to make that determination, it is necessary to look at the issue from the point of view of my presuppositions not the presuppositions of the "full preterists."

And in my blog conversations with Samuel [bold added]: [8]

My focus has not been to debate the intricacies of Hymenæan theology. Others have done that well. As you know I don't generally debate those of your view for the reasons previously stated, and of which some of those reasons are being born out here. My focus has been to make it plain and simple to those who have decided that they reject their view, what their position MUST be with regards to their theological "tolerance" of your view. And like a Tylenol in the public school system, it must be zero tolerance. It cannot be tolerated under the rubric of Christianity. That is all. I don't use the Creeds because I don't have to. I do not believe it is illegitimate to do so. Since my intended audience is the orthodox it is really not an issue to do so, but others have that angle covered so I do not take that approach.

And after pounding that point...

You kept arguing something I was not even arguing Sam. Too bad it took over seventy posts in this blog for you to figure that out.

I restate it yet AGAIN:

From the point of view of the orthodox, there is Scriptural mandate to condemn your view as heretical.

And AGAIN:

What David said above [see footnote 1] is the ONLY point I was arguing. It is the only one I ever argue when it comes to condemning this view.

I really commend to the reader to peruse that entire exchange between Samuel and I, it is a real eye-opener, and after that session, it is unfathomable that he went on to write an entire article that completely and utterly did not deal with the point at hand. Thus Samuel's main "problem" with my article and argument is deliciously irrelevant. With that in mind, I will now deal with his comments in full.

"Dee Dee Warren (an alias name) has been stirring the pot recently with a quote by Dave Green, a [hyper - DDW] preterist."

Let the word games begin! David Green is proffered, without qualification, as a "preterist." This becomes important as we shall see in the next paragraph. Before that point, however, I have to question the relevance of this statement as presented as it is just thrown out there without explanation to let the reader wonder in what dastardly way I have been roiling the previously tranquil surface of said pot. Apparently, Samuel is still claiming that I have misused David Green? [9] (which he uses as the springboard to address my "Grave Heresy" article) As far as the relationship between myself and this hapless pot, if pointing out the truth of what David Green said and applauding his courage for doing do qualifies as such a domestic endeavor, then I am guilty as charged. Any other inference is, quite simply, a crock [pun intended].

"Dee is a radical anti- [hyper- DDW] preterist..."

This is highly amusing. Judging by that appellation an unfamiliar reader would assume that I am not a preterist. You see, when it is convenient Samuel and many others in the hyperpreterist camp will invoke the names of persons who believe exactly as I do with regards to the timing of eschatological events and acknowledge the obvious - they are preterists. However, whenever it is equally convenient, if one dares to criticize the hyperpreterist heresy, as I do, one becomes an "anti-preterist." The status of Hank Hanegraaff within the hyperpreterist community once it became obvious that he could not be used for the purpose of propogating heresy changed so fast from "preterist" to "futurist" or "anti-preterist" it was apt to make heads spin faster than Linda Blair. Similarly, although Gary DeMar refuses to condemn the denial of the bodily resurrection as heretical (to his shame), his status in hyperpreterist propoganda changes from "preterist" when they wish to cloak their view with orthodoxy (or divide and conquer amongst the orthodox by citing an orthodox teacher) to "futurist" when they wish to hijack a historically good and orthodox term for their own blatantly heretical views. [10] [11] As far as radical... I am no more radical than Paul, for which Samuel thanked me, realizing that Paul, if the resurrection has not happened, would give him a head-chewing of Biblical proportions. [12]

"...who is emboldened with a modern day Joan of Arc spirit to wipe out [hyper - DDW] preterism..."

Precision Samuel. Precision. Hyperpreterism. If it were to wipe out "preterism" I would be deleting each of my web pages immediately after uploading them and running around town in acts of self-flaggelation. Interesting that Samuel should choose Joan of Arc - most of the allusions are flattering, I thank him. Is he then placing hyperpreterists in the role of Joan's enemies who were not particularly nice people (burning her at the stake and all ~ officially for wearing men's clothing)? I am sure a Freudian could have a field day with this allusion. Ahh perhaps Samual should have entitled his piece, The Allusions that Kill? [sarcasm]Should I fear marauding bands of hyperpreterists who think that I am "wearing men's clothes" because as a mere female I dare to oppose them?[/sarcam]

"...wherever she sees it."

That is not accurate, and Samuel knows it. Now if Samuel had said that I wish to "wipe out hyper-preterism wherever I see it masquerading as a legitimate 'Christian' view" he would be right as rain. If hyperpreterists were truly consistent (as David Green was) and segregated into their own version of "Christianity," (David hasn't yet been that consistent, though he should) they would hear very little from me. But it is the disengious insistence of "acceptance" that puts a bur under my saddle, and Samuel knows this. Now I know that doesn't make quite as sensationalistic of an article, but it has that nagging quality of being the truth.

"Whether she is merely preaching to her choir or making any negative inroads into [hyper - DDW] preterism cannot be known."

How is it that it "cannot" be known? What is so impossible about this to discern? How about this letter from Dan Trotter [13], this comment from Faramir [14], and this comment by Sharon Beverly [15]? I have many others, but they were privately communicated. I can assure you, that no matter how much Samuel and his ideological compatriots desire to think I have no success, the very fact that Samuel dedicated an article to me belies his true knowledge. [16] I am having an impact. And if anyone sees my choir, please tell them that they are late to practice.

"What is known is that anti- [hyper - DDW] preterist books continue to come out because of the growth rate of [hyper - DDW] preterism."

I contest the truth of this as Samuel intends in his Orwellian redefinition of preterism, but let's say that is true. So? "Anti" Mormon and "Anti" JWs books come out in the thousands, and it is alleged that Mormonism and/or Islam are the world's fasting growing false religions. That was simply silly filler.

"One person that attends our fellowship found us by merely searching the web for "preterism." It seems that the more people put out there against us, the more it peaks the curiosity of some to search out who we are; and some of these folks become convinced."

Oh, Samuel is engaging in argumentum ad googleum. And what does that have to do with the price of donuts? Oh, a feel good atta boy for the heretical crowd. Okay. More than one person has written me that they were flirting with this mythology and were pulled back from the pit from searching the web and finding my writings. Neither of these statements from Samuel or myself prove a blessed thing other than people research on the Internet. And it's all thanks to Al Gore.

"What's the old saying?"

There's a sucker born every minute?

"Any press is good press."

More filler. I doubt Samuel really believes that unless he thinks the Monica Lewinsky scandal was "good press" for Clinton.

" My name has been put into the spotlight by Jay E. Adams, Charles Hill, Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice. Not bad for a Hoosier boy."

With these fillers one would think that Samuel was getting paid by the word. I too have become a decently well-known person in this subject. In fact, I have been told that my name is almost used as an expletive in some hyperpreterist circles. Not bad for a girl.

"The quote by Dave Green is plastered in large letters on Dee's website (http://www.preteristsite.com/contrahym.html). That's a little free press from me."

Thanks!!!!

"Dave wrote, "Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [hyper - DDW] preterism is definitely (not "possibly" as I said) a damnable doctrine." (Dave's website is http://www.strato.net/~dagreen/pretcosmos.html) [DDW- that address is incorrect, see footnotes]. Dave and I have been in communication for several years and this particular issue recently came up. When I saw this quote, I thought, taken by itself, taken from its context, and the fact that I know Dave (and Dee does not), something was not right here. It appears that the quote is giving away the whole shooting match, and Dee has used it for just such an advantage. But, unlike Dee, we must investigate the matter and put this in its proper perspective."

It does indeed sell the farm, and I demonstrated why here. This was something first pointed out by David's debate opponent Keith Mathison: Mr. Green seems closer to understanding the problems involved in the debate than most other full-preterists I have read. I really hope that other full-preterists read this article because if they think through the implications of it, they will realize that they have to make a choice between full-preterism and Christianity. [17] If Samuel cares to deal with my response, he should, but until then... yawn... stretch - pass the Pilates book.

"The whole issue centers around the text, the only text, that is used by hyper-creedalists to support the notion that [hyper - DDW] preterism is, in fact, a heresy."

There are two downright utter misrepresentations in this statement. If this were nearly anyone other than Samuel I would call them lies. Since I know Samuel, and don't believe him to be a bald-faced liar by any means, then I have to presume this was a gross mistatement and is indicative of a serious lack of comprehension (or alternatively lack memory on what was actually said, though I would hope that he did the proper review of our few conversations before authoring this piece.) Misrepresentation number one: Samuel knows perfectly well that I do not use the creeds to defeat his heresy, and in the specific article that Samuel's piece is at least partly in response, I do not mention the creeds except in passing. They are definitely not a part of my argument, and Samuel has been informed about this quite clearly before. [18] And this childish, "I know you are, but what am I?" "hypercreedalist" nonsense ranks of desperation. What pray tell exactly IS a hypercreedalist? One that takes the creeds too far? Too far from what? From what they were intended? Obviously not, for no one relevant to this piece takes them for more than what they are intended - certainly not I, the person being addressed in Samuel's piece. In fact the Athanasian Creed, which Samuel once recklessly told me he assented to and then tried to claim that he only disagreed on a matter of timing - which comment he also had to retract - (showing he hasn't really given weighty thought to his historical arrogance, his explanation of forgetfulness just doesn't carry the day) says this:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic (universal) faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: ...

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic (universal) faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [19]

Thus the purpose of that Creed is to define acceptable Christian belief. How can one go "hyper" from that? Perhaps to say that it also defines acceptable Muslim belief? I have no idea. Now this isn't even said to support what that particular Creed says - it is irrelevant. It simply goes to show that this word-hurl is just a downright nonsensical attempt at rhetorical retaliation by the hyperpreterists. I am sure that Samuel can find plenty of relevant names to call me rather than glassily repeating the latest hyperpreterist buzzword. It makes zero sense.

Misrepresentation Number Two: is that I rely upon only one text, 2 Timothy 2:15-19. I direct the reader to my actual article where I cite no less than two other texts directly. Is it too much to ask that Samuel read the source material BEFORE speaking? It is ironic that his article title mentions the word "assumption" because during our extended blog conversations he assumed so many things about me only to be informed in no uncertain terms that he was incorrect - and considering that I have multiple writings stating exactly how I really feel, I don't really find this excusable.

The text used in question is II Tim 2.17-18: "and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: or whom is Hymenaeus an Philetus; 18 men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some" (ASV). This is in direct contradiction to what Paul said in verse 11: "if we died with him, we will also live with him." This is a nice condensed statement of Rom 6.1-ff, but I am not going to attempt to offer an exegesis of this text. What I want to combat is the error of the way folks like Dee have used this text as a proof that Christians must reject [hyper - DDW] preterists in the same manner as Paul rejected Hymenaeus and Philetus (HP here on in). Dave Green's statement never gives it the license that Dee thinks that it does.

What is interesting here is that Samuel acknowledges the purpose of my polemic - to show that Christians must reject hyperpreterism as heresy and acknowledges that I base it on the Biblical text (though he is claiming I am mistaken). If he then actually continued with that purpose in mind and retained his focus instead of flailing all over the map, I would have been hard-pressed to say he doesn't really address the point. Now then, one has to wonder why Samuel raised the creedal boogeyman earlier (again I note the Creeds but do not need them for my argument) and second why he switches all of a sudden to David Green's statement. I don't rely upon David Green to justify my position - that would be hyperGreenism, I rely upon the Bible. David Green has been proffered as an example of a hyperpreterist that agrees with my conclusion - which he absolutely does. Let me demonstrate. In my "'Grave' Error" piece I stated:

The response of the historic Church, and those who hold a like precious faith, must be ecclesiastical separation from those who would hold these tenets, which are both Creedally and Biblically heterodox in the strictest sense of the word.

To put it even more simply, my position argued was this: for those who believe in the future physical resurrection as that which is taught in the Bible, hyperpreterism must unavoidably be considered a damnable heresy. [20]

So what did David Green say again?

Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If [partial preterism] futurism is true, then [hyper] preterism is definitely (not "possibly," as I said) a damnable doctrine."

He said the exact same thing I said! I am arguing the exact same thing on this one point as Keith Mathison, whom David Green said was correct on THIS point (the ONLY point I have made). Samuel may not like this admission from his doctrinal ally but there it is, and it isn't rocket science folks. And of course none of that means a hill of beans if the Bible doesn't say it - the only proof for which I tender David Green is as an example of a hyperpreterist who has the courage of his convictions and the ability to think through the serious ramifications of his position. He is brutally theologically honest, and I can respect that. David has continued this theological honesty in his tough-as-nails criticisms of the liberal extremes in hyperpreterism and in "emergent" ideas expressed by Brian McLaren which I have been following with intense interest. I can say the same of both him and Roderick Edwards in this regard.

Now to do part of Samuel's work for him, in David's original article, Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds, he comes at things from primarily a creedal perspective and not a Biblical one (as I do with my article), and thus in its original context is distinguishable in that respect. However, in the comment to Keith Mathison, David Green removes any distinguishing factors. He doesn't say "If the creeds are true, then [hyper]preterism is a definitely damnable error," he says, "If futurism is true.." (and he defines futurism as including the point of view which I and Keith hold). Now I would say that ultimately is a distinction without an difference in the final analysis, but rather than wait for Samuel to actually read the source material and pick apart these finer details, I did so for him here. [21]

First off, I must define proof. I am a man of logic and have studied and collected books on logic for ever a decade. That is not a proof that I am always correct, but I say it just to let the reader know that I know what A(ab) and petitio principii are. I will define the latter Latin phrase later. The definition of proof is, "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or believable" (Random House College Dictionary). I give the first entry of any ordinary dictionary so as to show that I won't force my own definition into the term. I will come back to this definition again.

Ahh okay. I count this as "I am a scholar" fluff, but I promised at the beginning to leave all of Samuel's words intact. I seriously doubt that anyone reading his piece (or anyone that has any hope of following this conversation) really needed a definition of "proof.

Now, Dee uses a form of proof called an internal proof. An internal proof is a means of "proof by inferring a proposition from the other participant's concessions" (Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge Press, 1989, p. 5). In this case, Dee is inferring from Dave's statement a concession that for her proves that [hyper - DWW] preterists are to be treated as HP by Christians.

Now Samuel here uses a form of "proof" (tongue is planted firmly in cheek) known as the rufus piscis and faenum sapien. David's statement is in fact a concession (as proven - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true - above). However I never use David as PROOF for me that hyperpreterists are to be treated in the same was as Hymenæaus and Philetus - I use the Bible for that. I use David, once again, as an example of a brutally honest hyperpreterist who has dealt with at least the potential implications for his belief. Okay, let back up one sentence...

In this case, Dee is inferring from Dave's statement a concession that for her proves that [hyper - DDW] preterists are to be treated as HP by Christians. The claim for this charge is based on II Tim 2.17,18.

Samuel gets extremely muddled here and moves between my comments regarding David Green into an entirely different context, my "'Grave' Error" article. So to try to bring order out of the chaos that Samuel has created, my article is PARTLY (though it would be fair to say it is a large part) on 2 Timonty 2:17-18. David Green's comment was not based upon that passage but upon other fundamental philosophical premises.

To be redundant: since HP are shunned by Paul for saying the "resurrection is past already," and since [hyper - DDW] preterists today teach that the resurrection is past already, then [hyper - DDW] preterists are in the same class as HP. Get that? If not, read it again. If a second time does not help, go back to your couch and catch up on your reality television shows, this article is above your head.

That is a fair truncated summary. It would be more accurate to say that Paul condemned in the strongest possible terms as heresy a belief that the resurrection was past already when it in fact was not (and this is where Samuel gets hopelessly tangled in his own feet) - hyperpreterists believe and teach that the resurrection is past already and it in fact is not (from the point of view of those who have already determined what they believe with regards to the resurrection, i.e. those who hold to the historic Christian faith). Therefore, since hyperpreterists are teaching the same explicit error that was damned in Scripture, it is a damnable doctrine. And while I found Samuel's comment at the end there cute, it is incredibly ironic.

A proof is "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true or believable" and one must ask, Has Dee given sufficient evidence from this text to establish the charge that [hyper - DDW] preterists are to be treated as HP? Of course, my answer will be, "no."

Now, things look hopeful with this statement - it looks as if Samuel will forthrightly engage my argument. But looks can be deceiving. Further as stated above, 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is not the only text, nor the only philosophical principle I use, so Samuel is examining excised evidence from the get-go; however, he still fails on two counts. First, he shifts the goalposts as to whom which evidences are to be convincing, and second, despite that first fatal flaw, my point is still proven nonetheless.

Now let's watch Samuel get reduced into a rhetorical babble-fish:

I will deal, firstly, with indisputable facts of the text itself, of which no one I know would disagree. 1) Paul wrote this letter to Timothy in the early or mid 60's C.E. 2) Paul condemned the view that the resurrection was "past already" in the mid sixties (indisputable fact). 3) We do not have Paul on record, after A.D. 70, condemning the view of the resurrection as "past already" (indisputable fact). These are facts with which no one could possibly disagree.

Stating things that are "indisputable facts" is not the issue and is designed to invest the statements with weight that may or may be appropriate. For instance, it is indisputable that there are 49 words in the NAS version of the text and that one sentence starts with "B" and the next starts with "A." These are facts with which no one could possibly disagree. Let's then translate Samuel's statement into the truly relevant facts:

Paul wrote a letter to Timothy before the resurrection had happened
Paul condemned two men for teaching that the resurrection had already happened when it had not
Paul died before the resurrection happened

This could be summed up even more succinctly: Paul condemned the teaching that the resurrection was past already when it was not as a Very Bad Thing^tm. The actual dates are largely irrelevant to the theological point. In other words the theological point wouldn't change if Paul wrote that letter in AD 40 and the hyperpreterists taught that the resurrection (and it still baffles the mind how an educated man like Samuel can possibly say any such thing with a straight face) happened twenty years after that. The salient fact is that Paul condemns saying the resurrection happened when it didn't.

Now folks, see Spot run. See Samuel pull a bait and switch.

Here is, yet, another fact: 4) Modern [hyper - DDW] preterists do not teach that the resurrection was "past already" by the time of the 60's C.E. That is an undisputable fact.

And it is completely irrelevant to the point since no one is claiming that any modern Hymenæan preterist is over two thousand years old. However, for those who have already decided the preterizing of the resurrection is a load of horse patookey, every modern hyperpreterist DOES teach the very doctrine explicitly condemned: the resurrection happened already when it has not.

[Hyper - DDW] Preterists, rather, affirm with Paul in the same letter that "if we have died with him, we shall also live with him" (2.11 - that is, the resurrection is future), and that his appearing was "about to come" (4.1 - using mello, a future verb in Greek. It matters not for this article how one defines mello because the fact of the matter is that it is a future verb and, therefore, this appearing of Christ was yet future for Paul). Go over these facts in your mind. They are indisputable.

Fluff. Very few cultic groups admit they actually deny what the Bible says. I have laid out, not simply indisputable facts, but the relevant ones - which is a lot more useful.

Dee and Dave agree that Paul condemned HP precisely because they asserted that the resurrection was "past already".

Samuel is much more transfixed with David than I am - my article was not about David. However, I see that in that statement Samuel has also sold the farm. Unfortunately, he then tries to remain as a squatter.

It cannot be entertained from this text as to the nature of their teaching.

Well no preterist advocates that verses be read in isolation, and I didn't believe that many hyperpreterists openly do so - so whether or not from this text alone it can be ascertained is in, irrelevant. I think that the nature of their teaching can in fact be determined, since resurrection meant something specific in that cultural context. This has been proven in spades by N.T. Wright. [22]

All that this text mentions is that HP taught that that resurrection was "past already." Paul, for our considerations thus far, may have condemned HP on the basis of the fact that he taught a fleshly-corpse resurrection, and thus, it would be absurd to suggest that a spiritual resurrection (the view of HP) had replaced the coming corpse resurrection of the dead. Maybe. I am not wanting to go into that issue. The only issue I am dealing with here is, does this text, and this text alone, give sufficient evidence to prove that modern [hyper - DDW] preterists are to be treated like Paul treated HP? Let's keep on subject.

As demonstrated above in multiple places, I never argued from that passage alone so to examine whether or not one can support my point from that passage alone might be nice argument, but patently not pertinent to me.

Dee And Dave equally agree that Paul wrote in the early to mid 60's C.E.

Once again, Dave is not the issue. I am sure he will not be offended that I don't hold him to be inspired. However, while it is true I would agree on the date, I also agree that Paul was a man, and used to be called Saul. All true - and all ultimately irrelevant.

They also agree on the fact that the resurrection of the dead was not "past already" by the time Paul wrote to his protégé.

This is the only pertinent point.

Lot's of agreement here. Since Paul has not, in this text, commented on the nature of the resurrection, either in Dee's view or in Dave's, then it can be asserted with great logical deduction that HP and modern [hyper - DDW] preterism does not teach the same thing on all points.

Actually Samuel would be incorrect - my position is now that Paul has in fact commented, by his choice of words, on the nature of the resurrection, though it is not essential to my position as I previously demonstrated in my "Duck" article. The greater error though is that Samuel raises the issue that hyperpreterism has to teach the same thing on all points to be condemned by that passage - such a requirement is impossible. To be the same on all points would require hyperpreterism actually be HP in all respects including identity and lifetime. This is clearly absurd, and is a unjustified requirement that Samuel has smuggled in. In fact, this is another example of Samuel not bothering to read my prior articles on this subject since I already dealt with this kind of assertion and a responsible challenger would interact with my prior published comments. [23]

That is, what we know only from this bare text is that HP taught that by the mid 60's C.E. the resurrection was "past already" and modern [hyper - DDW] preterists do not teach this.

Ahh here is where Samuel pulls a fast one. The date that HP taught this is absolutely irrelevant to the point being taught - once again, to teach that the resurrection is past when it is not yet past. Thus from the point of few of the orthodox, those from whom Samuel desparately wants acceptance, hyperpreterists DO teach exactly that. There wasn't anything particularly noxious about teaching that heresy in the 60s except for the fact it had not happened yet. It would have been equally noxious if taught in the 50s because that fact would have JUST as true, and it is just as true today. This is frankly a horridly shallow and myopic argument.

This is not something to just skip over. This, according to this text, is a major issue. Thusly, according to modern [hyper - DDW] preterists HP were indeed heretics. What, then, is the problem?

The ONE salient fact was not skipped over. Paul condemned the preterizing of the resurrection when it has not happened yet.

If these facts are what they are, and if the agreements between Dave and Dee are what they are, then why does Dee condemn Dave to the stake?

More inappropriate and false appeals to emotion. I might ask if the facts are what they are, why does Samuel feel the need to inappropriately demonize my point of view with regards to how apostate views should be treated?

There is only one reason: Dee assumes that Paul's view of the resurrection is the traditional view.

Well duh! I state this right up front in both articles - I am writing to those whom agree with me on the orthodox belief in the resurrection to determine what our position should be vis-a-vis the claims of hyperpreterists with regards to whether it is an acceptable variation in the Body of Christ. Now I have excellent reasons for that "assumption" but my articles weren't written for that purpose. They also assume the existence of God, the inerrancy (or at least the historical accuracy) of the Scriptures, and the historical existance of Christ. I don't set out to prove any of those things, my intended audience already has these factors in common.

Now, let's try running that through the text: HP are condemned by Paul for saying that the resurrection is "past already", which means that HP taught a spiritual resurrection of sorts.

It is tiresome that Samuel has not read what I have actually said on this subject. Let me quote myself:

I also point out in my article (despite Don's overly confident crowing about the undeniable nature of the controversy) that Hymenæus may very well have been right about the nature of the resurrection by claiming that the many saints of Matthew 27:53 were all that were to be raised.

So Samuel's assertion is misplaced, and I have become more convinced that the nature of the resurrection is not an issue at all in this passage but rather the timing and the scope.

Since Paul taught a fleshly resurrection (the assumption), then HP are not only condemned for teaching that it was "past already" but also for implicitly teaching that it was spiritual and not fleshly. However, it has been shown that from this text, and this text only, Paul's says nothing about the nature of the resurrection. This is an assumption carried into the text. This assumption, presumably, is borrowed from other Pauline assertions about the resurrection (Phil 3; I Cor 15; and the like) where he is interpreted as teaching a fleshly resurrection of the corpse united with the soul (the traditional view). It is fine and perfectly legitimate to read into Paul's statements other statements from other texts when the subject matter is the same if one's desire is to harmonize Paul. But, I must bring the reader back to the original argument: we are only using this text to condemn modern [hyper - DDW] preterists as HP.

What a tangled web. It is false that this text says "nothing" about the nature, the very use of the word "resurrection" speaks volumes about the nature. Second, I do not accept Samuel's dictates about using only "one passage" which is drawn from his earlier blatant misrepresentation that I only use one passage. This is second-rate fluff.

Take fact number 3 above: We do not have Paul on record, after C.E. 70, condemning a view of the resurrection as "past already" (indisputable fact). See, our opponents want to condemn us as Paul did HP on the basis of the phrase "past already." Since we say it is "past already" then, according to them, we are like HP. But, fact number 3 remains, and, therefore, in accordance with strict logical deduction, they cannot, from this passage alone condemn our view.

That argument is in the kindest possible way - dumb. Paul was dead prior to AD70 (I prefer the date designations that refer to Jesus as the focal point of history) and the date of his condemnation, as shown before, is irrelevant. The salient point is that the resurrection was declared to be past when it wasn't already. The fact remains true. Certainly Samuel isn't asserting that IF the resurrection didn't happen in AD70 (as the Christian faith maintains) that Paul, if he lived, would not have equally condemned it. This is a smoke and mirrors. Further, there is no such "strict logical deduction" except in Samuel's own mind. He has elevated an inconsequential trivia to a main factor - the main factor once again being - IF the resurrection has not yet happened, it is rank heresy to say it has. That factor remains alive and well in hyperpreterism.

They must marshal up other passages.

Which in my overall argument - if Samuel had read the mere two pieces I have written on this would know - I do. But it isn't necessary, this passage is in fact enough. The others, such as 1 Cor 15, explain why this gnostic denial of the physical resurrection is foundational.

By assuming that Paul taught a fleshly resurrection in II Tim 2.17,18 they are begging the question (petition principii). Begging the question "occurs when the conclusion to be proved by an arguer is already presupposed by his premises" (Walton, ibid., p.22).

This is incredibly sloppy. Samuel has not paid one whit of attention to the "conclusion to be proved" in my two articles. I state in my introduction what the "conclusion to be proved" was, and Samuel has been firing at an incorrect target. Which of course is, you guessed it, a straw man. It gets better...

Further, "In persuasive dialogue, the goal of each participant is to prove his conclusion from premises that are accepted as commitments by the other participant" (Walton, 52).

Does Samuel mean how I explicitly state in my articles that the intended audience is those who already agree on the historic doctrine of the resurrection? Samuel may not like that HE is not my intended audience, but he certainly has zero standing to tell me who my "participants" are. And they are NOT hyperpreterists.

It is plain that from this text, Dee and Dave are both committed to the fact that HP were heretics.

Somewhere Samuel has turned a posting of a quote from David Green into a full-fledged debate I am having with David that apparently only exists in Samuel's own mind. Further, I have to question whether Samuel has even read David's debate with Keith Mathison for if he did it would be hard to assert that David's comments sprung solely from that text. They didn't.

Both are committed to the fact that the resurrection was not "past already" by the mid 60's C.E.

I remind the reader I never had a "debate" with David Green. David's words speak for themselves, if Keith Mathison's view is correct, then his (David's) view is definitely damnable heresy (his words).

What is not agreed upon is the nature of the resurrection which Dee smuggles in. In other words, for Dee's conclusion (modern preterists are akin to HP), she must have as an assumption that Paul is also condemning any and all spiritual interpretations of the future resurrection of the dead. But, this is an unshared premise between Dave and Dee. Dee is arguing from the premise that must be proven, first.

Since David nor any other hyperpreterist was not my intended audience, nothing has been smuggled, or must that fact be proven (as if two thousand years of united Church testimony isn't sufficient to overthrow the pretensions of the heresy de jour). Speaking of smuggling, if Samuel had actually read what I have written on this (novel idea, I know), he would know that I have proven my case whether or not a "spiritual resurrection" (an oxymoron in the way hyperpreterists employ it which boils down to saying a nonbodily, nonphysical, bodily, physical thing) is in view. All I have to prove is that Paul condemned claiming that the resurrection is past when it isn't to show to those who believe it is NOT past that for the sake of truth they cannot coddle and tolerate this impious goobledegook.

Once this is admitted, then Dave can ask, "why do you assume that Paul has in mind here a resurrection of fleshly corpses"? To which, Dee would have to answer, not from this text, but from others texts, which is perfectly fine. This shifts the argument over to other texts, and it is perfectly fair in argumentation to question one's assumptions.

And in my articles (which again if Samuel had actually read before speaking would know) although I do not have to, I do address other texts and concepts for the benefit of my intended audience - the orthodox.

...in an e-mail conversation with me, wrote, "They think they're justified in condemning us based on a creedal assumption and one isolated Scripture-text interpreted by their creedal assumption." That is what Dave meant in the quotation given earlier above by him, which is plastered on Dee's webpage as a proof of her condemnation of modern preterists.

I think David in his debate explained what he meant - if Keith Mathison's view was correct, and his view on the resurrection, have no doubt about it, is the historic one, then hyperpreterism is a definitely damnable heresy (David's words). Samuel's Spindarella act does not change that.

Dee thinks that she has the winning ticket in II Tim 2.17,18, but she only has the winning ticket if and only if the physical view (the traditional, creedal view) is understood in Paul's denunciation against HP.

Which of course is the beliefs of my intended audience!! My goal, once again, is an evaluation of what the orthodox MUST think about this new-fangled idea. Should it be treated with toleration, perhaps akin to Calvinism versus Arminianism? Or must it be purged, like Arianism? And thus, Samuel concedes here that if the traditional view is correct, I have the winning ticket. Therefore, those who believe that the traditional view is correct MUST condemn hyperpreterist as rank heresy. It is nice to see that Samuel agrees with me. It is frightening to see how thoroughly he doesn't see it.

This is begging the question, and begging the question "is a fault in persuasion dialogue because a circular argument is useless for the purposes of persuading someone to accept a conclusion on the basis of premises that they are, or can become, committed to. An argument that begs the question is doomed from the outset as a persuasive proof" (Walton, 54).

Since Samuel has accepted my conclusion, but apparently wishes to bury it in a mountain of words, this is a spurious charge. Second, Samuel is not my intended audience so HIS "accepted premises" are moot. But even more poignant, Samuel DOES accept my premises if he would argue consistently in a manner that shows that he actually understands what my argument is. The premise that Samuel is attempting to sidestep is that I (and ALL who ARE my intended audience) hold to the historic view of the resurrection. Does Samuel deny that? Is he presuming to tell me that I have to prove to him that I believe that? That is laughable. Therefore, the premise in MY argument (not Samuel's argument, or the argument that Samuel is caterwauling that I am not having) is perfectly accepted by my target audience and anyone with a grasp on the reality of what historic Christianity teaches, because the premise, as needed for my argument, is NOT that the historic view of the resurrection is correct in the eyes of Samuel and hyperpreterists, but that I and countless others believe that it is, and in light of THAT belief, what must we believe about its denial. Sheesh, this obduracy is mind-numbing.

Therefore, in conclusion, in order for Dee's argument to have any merit whatsoever from II Tim 2.17,18, she must first demonstrate that Paul has in mind a traditional view of the resurrection, and this she cannot do from one isolated text here, but must consider other texts combined with an appeal to history (creeds). If and only if she can prove that this is what Paul has in mind here in II Tim 2.17-18, then, and only then, would she have a point. That is, if she can prove to preterists from other sources that Paul firmly, explicitly, univocally believed in the future resurrection of transformed corpses which are united with their souls to form a "glorified body", then preterists must yield to the word of Paul, or be in danger of heresy.

We have come full circle - Samuel concedes that if the historic view of the resurrection is correct, he is a heretic. That was my point. The nature of the resurrection has been proven a zillion times over by others, it is not my obligation to "prove" it to every aspiring heretic. If Samuel will not believe the overwhelming testimony of the Church, he certainly isn't going to believe me. What he wants, however, is legitimacy and acceptance by insisting that his voice be heard in the very Church he has defamed and rejected. He may be heard, but firmly from the outside, in competition with the rest of the cultic ideas clamouring for attention. My point was to prove to those who already believe in the orthodox view that Samuel must be place firmly there and not granted such legitimacy lest we mock the commands of Paul. I have done so.

Interestingly enough, a curious problem arises. Dee has stated that she does not debate "heretics" (more question begging).

More obfuscation - it is operating consistently within my own convictions. Unless Samuel wants to declare that the existence of God is question-begging if an atheist challenged this point.

If this is truly the case, then no argument has been won. Paul debated judaizers all the time, no problem. He debated Peter to his face. Jesus debated Sadducees and Pharisees.

Actually neither did either. They OPPOSED those groups on their own terms for the benefit of the orthodox (meaning those who held to true doctrine). They didn't allow the heretics to declare the ground rules, and neither do I. It is funny how Samuel, as he so often ends up doing, has to oppose and condemn Paul for it was Paul who told Timothy NOT to engage Hymenæaus and Philetus but told him to shun their "profane and idle babblings." (2 Timothy 2:14) Pitting Paul against Paul will not do. Thus, it is Samuel who is moving the goalposts by not acknowledging what his opponents such as I accept - that his heresy is of the same ilk, thus Samuel would like me to disregard Paul in favour of his craving for a place at the Christian eschatological table. I'll pass, I think Paul knew what he was a doing a tad bit more than Samuel.

If preterism is a heresy that is growing in the church, then it behooves those who sit on the towers to watch after the flock and warn against men such as Dave Green and myself, who are like gangrene and overthrow the faith of some.

Which is exactly what I am doing. Funny how that works. Samuel has "smuggled" in HIS requirement that such means giving those who propogate blasphemous heresy a "voice" in the flock.

Here, another interesting problem arise. Dee has expressed kindness to me for expressing kindness to her in our discussions (which have never been over texts). Would Paul have extended the same courtesy?

Yes he would. That is in fact what is meant by the whole New Testament teaching of loving your enemies. It doesn't mean allowing them to preach unmitigated heretical twaddle unopposed with a false veneer of tolerant gobbledegook. It does mean that if Samuel was being unjustly personally abused, or in some personal need of basic necessities, and I have any power and influence to make a difference, that I do so. That is why I had no problem of calling on Samuel to do so in my case, which challenge he answered and did the right thing. If Paul saw Hymenæus being slandered unjustly, blackmailed, or collapsed and bleeding on the street, I believe that the commands of Christ require that he help him. Samuel and other hyperpreterists are my theological enemies. However, they are not my personal ones.

She has also noted a difference between "heresy" and "heretic." I do not see a distinction. A heretic is a person who has a heresy and openly promotes it among the church in attempts of persuading them. That's the "gangrene" part.

No, that description is not necessarily a heretic, which I define as someone who with knowledge, deliberation, and forethought denies an essential of the faith which requires knowledge into the mental and spiritual state of a person that I do not have. I can, however, judge their doctrine. Loosely speaking, Samuel's comments are correct, he is a heretic, and since he holds himself out as a teacher and "pastor," he will be held to a stricter judgment. In the more narrow sense, I don't know if Samuel is a heretic, but I can know that he is propogating repugnant heresy.

What needs to happen is a full orbed dialogue of massive proportions.

This would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. Isn't Samuel aware that the nature of the resurrection was one of the first controversies that the early Church dealt with so that this "dialogue" has already happened and the results thereby have been codified in the Creeds so that we know what the outcome was? Samuel's words could easily be transplanted into those who wish to revisit the necessity of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Church has been there and done that. Samuel expects two thousands years of solidatarity on this fact to tremble at his impetuous raised fist and arrogance in insisting that the Church, under the governance of the Holy Spirit, not only got a few minor details wrong, but has failed to comprehend the foundational teleos of eschatology until the first hyperpreterist burst unto the scene [24]. That quite frankly is astounding gall - and the stuff of which cults are made.

A few books and articles on someone's webpage isn't going to do it, but it's a start. What I am saying is that before this discussion and all of its relevant texts and issues are debated, then the charge of "heresy" must wait.

Actually not for those who have already sided with the historic Christian faith. We are under no obligation to jump through the hoops of would-be heretics. These issues WERE already debated, and the essentials of these issues handed down to us through the Creeds. Hyperpreterists may not like that I and others actually have a position without consulting them about it, but there it is. And once we have our position, we must decide whether or not hyperpreterism - coming from within our own doctrinal decisions - is an issue for which latitude, tolerance, and charity is extended or not. And the Scriptural mandate, not Samuel's bellyaching, is that it is definitely NOT. Samuel is free however to perpetuate and promote his own pseudo-Christian cultic movement as he is currently doing. He is not free to perfume the hog of hyperpreterism into historic Christian faith.

Dee does not have apostolic authority to denounce us, and she only does so on the basis of her view, which is the very thing that needs to be discussed and proven.

I denounce hyperpreterism from the apostolic authority of Paul. Further Samuel lapses into the dreaded "creedalism" and "tradition" he allegedly so abhores - who says I must have apostolic authority? Why is not exegesis from the Scriptures sufficient? What ever happened to the Sola Scriptura that Samuel parades about when convenient? So it appears that Samuel once again has sold the farm, horses and all, without realizing it. He concedes both implicitly and explicitly that for those who have already decided, and with the chutzpah of not dedicating their lives to answering hyperpreterist challenge after hyperpreterist challenge replete with garishly formatted spam emails that is endemic of certain segments of this movement (not Samuel), that if the resurrection has NOT past, then for those of US who hold that it is definitely future, his view IS heresy. Samuel could have been upfront about that with to his readers from the get-go by not burying it in a florid explosion.

It is their unwillingness to discuss this issue at such lengths that is allowing the "gangrene" continued growth.

Chicken Little nonsense. How many readers think that Samuel is really "concerned" about "us" so that he is ever so helpfully telling us (the orthodox) what to do? I don't, my balogna meter went into orbit. And Samuel is playing false by claiming that the issue has NOT been discussed at length. I refer the read to this page listing multiple refutations of hyperpreterist mythology. However, engaging hyperpreterists is not what I choose to do - my focus is warning the orthodox - exactly what Samuel suggested that we do.

In this case, however, preterists are guilty before being proved innocent.

And this is coming from an upstart view that is claiming that the Church has been completely wrong on one of the absolute basics of the faith for two thousand years, and it is a that fact has been proven guilty in spades. Apparently Samuel thinks a thing not proven if HE personally doesn't accept it. While he may think so highly of his opinion, the Church is not obligated to do so.

Yes, preterism is a heresy if and only if the creeds and the traditions are right (the thing to be proved)...

Which is of course the ONLY point I was speaking of, and Samuel confesses I am right. Samuel concedes that for those who are convinced that that orthodox view is correct, he is teaching heresy. My question to Samuel then is why he expects the orthodox to simply accede to such an invitation to apostasy with alacrity? He is countenancing the abandonment of truth and having a fit because the committed choose obedience to God (within their own paradigm) instead!

...but is it not equally dangerous in the eyes of God to condemn someone who is actually a brother in the same family as you?

Begging the question - Samuel is not my brother. Hyperpreterism is not Christian. Paul didnt shy away from excising such from the Body and neither should we.

This conversation is far, far from over. One day it will take on national proportions so that whole church can discuss it at length. Perhaps even a major evangelical council or society will tackle it (like the Evangelical Theological Society).

Does anyone else find it the height of hypocrisy for a hyperpreterist to want a council?(!) The fact is that there already was a council, and it produced the Athanasian Creed which explicitly lays out both the timing and nature of the resurrection. Samuel may belly-ache that it wasn't "evangelical" - I sure hope he just as quickly refuses to grant it's Christological findings of little import when confronted by an "evangelical" Oneness Pentacostal. [25]

Until then, we press the issue, make the case, and prove our arguments in a decent and godly way.

Hmmm, like accusing one's opponents of wanting to burn hyperpreterists at the stake?

No doubt, if we were alive 500 years ago, Dee and Keith Mathison would be gathering up the sticks to burn us at the stakes (that's what they did with officially condemned heretics - Even Calvin had no problem with watching the heretic Servetus get his). I think of movies like Frankenstein, where the villagers are armed with torches and pitchforks. Well, today it is not so violent. That may be because it is against the law to kill heretics. I wonder what would happen, though, if these people were in power and heresy was a crime? I shudder, but enough ad misericordium (look it up).

Dealt with in my opening remarks.

So in conclusion, Samuel for the most part completely argued against things I never set out to prove and set up ridiculous parameters to knock down. In other words, his piece was good for scaring crows and giving the appearance of substance to salve the hyperpreterists, but little more. Further he waved the white flag when it came to the conclusion I actually intend to prove so this was ultimately an exercise in meaninglessness.

Epilogue

The issues discussed here go to the core of why I hold that at best, the tactics of hyperpreterists are incredibly reductionist and naive, and at worst, theologically dishonest. [26] Samuel (and anyone who is going to realistically deal with this issue) concedes that IF the historic view is correct, hyperpreterism is heresy. Yet... in an extreme case of cognitive dissonance, he expects to be welcomed by those who currently hold the historic view as simply another Christian brother. That is impossible for the very reasons he himself admits. While he certainly may challenge others to re-examine their beliefs, he cannot do so and expect to be accepted as just another valid eschatological option by those who do not yet hold his views. To them he is inviting them to rank apostasy, yet he is so naive to be surprised that he isn't universally and wholeheartedly welcomed to do so! He must come to terms with this and deal with this in a frank and honest manner. His attempts, and those of other hyperpreterists, to pretend like we the orthodox SHOULD accept them as brothers where we are and where they are, are completely disrespectful of our theological committments and expect us to wink at apostasy. It is astounding to me that he would think so little of trampling underfoot that which is held by us to be the like precious faith delivered once for all to the saints and expect us to encourage it with the hand of fellowship. Good grief Charlie Brown.

End Notes

[1] The quote in question is from my ContraHymenæan page which states as follows: "Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not "possibly," as I said) a damnable doctrine." - NeoHymenæan David Green Go Back.

[2] Don Preston responded to my very first foray into the Hymenæan bramble, Is It Duck, over five years ago. Don's response and my rebuttal can be found as an appendix to that original article. Go Back.

[3] "Now, IF your version of "orthodoxy" is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?)." http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11043591&postID=111382390893285032. Go Back.

[4] "Yes - IF you are right in your presuppositions, then my view is heresy." http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=364483&postcount=49. Go Back.

[5] Hyper-preterist David Green conceded this point to Keith Mathison (referenced in endnote [1],) "Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If [partial preterism] futurism is true, then [hyper] preterism is definitely (not "possibly," as I said) a damnable doctrine." - bracket insertion mine for sake of clarity, parenthetical comment is totally Green's - http://www.preteristcosmos.com/matresponse.html. Go Back.

[6] "Grave" Error: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church Go Back.

[7] How to Completely Miss the Point in 450 Words or Less Go Back.

[8] http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11043591&postID=111382390893285032 Go Back.

[9] I answered the charge that I was misusing David Green in my blog here: http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41">http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41. Go Back.

[10] Although I highly respect Gary's work in preterism and promote "Last Days Madness" as THE primer on preterism, Gary and I have had multiple "confrontations" on the issue of hyperpreterism over the years. Most recently, on the "Narrow Mind" radio broadcast on 9/20/05, after Gary conversed freely with Samuel on the "acceptable" nature of hyperpreterism within Christianity, I called the show and challenged Gary to defend his statement that hyperpreterists do not deny the resurrection by asking him if Mormons deny the Trinity. The point of course was that although hyperpreterists use the word "resurrection," they pour an entirely different meaning into the word than is meant in the confession of Christian faith in the Bible and in history and thus affirm the "resurrection" in the same way that Mormons affirm the Trinity - in name alone. Gary refused to answer my question claiming that it was off the topic of the radio show. It was, but it was Gary who opened that door by freely going off topic when defending hyperpreterism yet pleaded "off-topic" when called upon to defend this advocacy. http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=66 Go Back

[11] In fact, in just one blog conversation thread, Samuel switches from acknowledging Gary DeMar as a preterist when he wished to use Gary against me as a fellow preterist who accepts hyperpreterism within Christianity to labeling him as a futurist when wishing to claim the title of preterist for his heretical views alone. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=364483&postcount=49. Go Back.

[12] "Thanks for NOT treating me like Paul would have treated Hym. and Phil. Paul would have been far more severe, not just to the doctrine, but to them as well, handing them over to Satan." http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41#comments Go Back

[13] http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/trottersupport.pdf Go Back

[14] http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/faramirsupport.html Go Back

[15] Dee Dee Warren takes on the world of Pantelism...Dee Dee Warren, J. P. Holding, and other saints with foreheads of flint take on many issues affecting the Christian ~ formerly located at http://www.whiteroseofsharon.com/pan.html Go Back

[16] Todd Dennis of the Preterist Archive commented on my initial article "Is It a Duck?" ~ Perhaps no other article has stirred [hyper - DDW] Preterists to defend their faith (and get off of the rhetorical La-Z-Boy) since Gentry. (insertion mind) http://www.preteristarchive.com/Forms/ap_warren_dd_form.html Go Back

[17] http://www.preteristcosmos.com/matresponse.html Go Back

[18] http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11043591&postID=111382390893285032 Ironically Samuel has had the nerve to claim creedal authority to label Tim Warner as a heretic (see here). This is chutzpah considering Samuel's denial of key points of the Athanasian Creed. Go Back.

[19] Historic Creeds and Confessions. 1997 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor Go Back.

[20] I have parsed out a clarification to this statement many ways. In my "Duck" article I noted the following: There is an additional point that needs to be made here, and that is why I state that this mythology is a "potentially" damnable heresy and not a definitely damnable heresy. I do this because I am not God and do not know a person's heart. I do not know if they have some kind of mental defect or how wholeheartedly they really embrace this mythology. A dear friend pointed out to me that there is a difference between someone who believes a heresy and a condemned heretic, and such a distinction requires discernment. The doctrine itself is a damnable heresy taken in isolation, but whether or not that translates into a damned heretic, I cannot say. I also addressed this issue here: http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=40 Go Back.

[21] Keith did engage David on the primary grounds of the Creeds, but the context was not strictly Creedal for the Creeds cannot be divorced from the Scriptures, a point which David concedes even to the point that unlike some very shallow-thinking hyperpreterists, he confesses a belief in the authority of the Creeds. Keith closed his comments to David with, My conclusion about preterism is also based upon Biblical reason. The Scriptures do teach that false doctrines concerning the nature and/or the timing of our resurrection are damnable (I Cor. 15; II Tim. 2:17-18). This is not creedal reasoning disconnected from the reasoning of the Scriptures." My article took up the issue from that starting point. Go Back.

[22] See The Wright Stuff Go Back.

[23] I am not suggesting that Samuel have read everything I have ever written or even everything on preterism. That would be unreasonable However, in this case, Samuel has been informed that I have a total of two articles on this very subject (in addition to the personal conversations Samuel and I have had on my blog). I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that he have read them and actually interact with arguments already made if he is going to write a "response" to me. Go Back.

[24] David Green has committed the unpardonable hyperpreterist sin of admitting that there are certain things in the Creeds which cannot by any mean be challenged as follows, "What does this mean in the creedalist / preterist controversy? For one thing, it means that the creedalists are correct when they say that we may not refute the elemental traditions of the Gospel that are contained in the creeds. They are right that such things are "not up for debate." The rudiments of the Gospel are indeed divine presuppositions without which the historic Faith and the Church would completely disappear. We are not free to refute or nullify any of the cardinal elements of the Christian Faith." (disregarding David's wildly inaccurate terminology of "creedalist" and "preterist") Later, David acknowledges, "A creed is a confession or rule of faith that is meant to authoritatively set forth the articles of the Christian Faith, especially those cardinal articles that are necessary for a man to know in order to be saved....The ecumenical (general or worldwide) creeds are the doctrinal confessions of the ancient, post-apostolic Church. The historic, universal Church has in general, either explicitly or implicitly, regarded these creeds as authoritative expressions of the Christian Faith. There are three ecumenical creeds: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed." So, David first claimed that it was not possible for the Church to have a false gospel in her creeds though other "errors" could exist. Yet the Athanasian Creed requires the belief in the future bodily resurrection as a salvational tenet explicitly, i.e. it doesn't just state the elements and leave us freedom to decide which ones are "major" and which ones are "minor" - thus David must claim that the historic Church has in fact believed in a Creedal false Gospel, something he said that hyperpreterists are NOT free to do. Of course, I do not concede to David that without that explicit statement that the future resurrection is NOT an explicit part of the Gospel. It is. I was, however, taking David's argument at face vaue and "taking the roof off" as it were. David's comments are contained in his article "Preterism and Eucemenical Creeds" found here: http://preteristcosmos.com/pretcreed.html David's comments also refute the simplistic notion of "Sola Scriptura" put forth by Samuel as the sine qua non of hyperpreterism - David articulates that there are in fact Creedal limits as to what may be challenged by some "new" interpretation. Go Back.

[25] It is interesting that the statements on the timing and the nature of the resurrection appear in a highly Christological creed - this is because, and the hyperpreterists utterly fail to comprehend this, the consummation is inextricably Christological. We will be raised because Christ was raised - there is a correspondence. A modern analogy I used in Paltalk was that the relationship of Christ's resurrection to our own is like constrained proportions in digital editing. One cannot alter the height without altering the width if the image is to keep its original perspective. One cannot make a statement about our resurrection without making the same statement about Christ's. Go Back.

[26] While I don't doubt that like any other group there are personally dishonest hyperpreterists, that is not what I am referring to here. This type of dishonesty is that which springs from being theologically deceived and thus a pawn, when it comes down to it, of satan's opposition to the truth. A similar case can be made for Jews who reject their Messiah. Personally, in other situations, they may demonstrate great personal integrity; theologically they are deceived and propogate deceptions. Such is the same with hyperpreterists. Go Back.

Frosty the Strawman by Dee Dee Warren