by Dee Dee Warren
Perfuming the Hog
Some of the material in this article as it pertains to the views of certain individuals is out of date as their views have changed. However, the underlying arguments against anyone who would take up their position remains. However, for a more up to date presentation of this information, please listen to The Preterist Podcast Episode Three.
He who controls the language, controls the debate ~ exact source unknown.
Same sex relations are no longer perverse... they are gay. It isn't adultery.... it's an affair. It's not used.... it's pre-owned. And..... it's not an utterly heretical and disgusting denial of a core Christian doctrine, it's full and consistent while the rest of us poor saps are just sooooo..... partial and inconsistent. Hogwash.
For quite some time now the hyperpreterists have been attempting to ride in on the coattails of doctrinal respectability by usurping a historically orthodox term - preterism.  At times they will accept the qualifier of "full," but increasingly in their writings they insist upon hijacking the historic term for themselves, and pasting the label "partial" upon those who hold to the historic and orthodox understanding. I have for some time now refused to use this terminology for the most part. I am a preterist in the tradition of what the word has meant historically within the bounds of Christianity and refuse the revisionists their place. As persons who take an established principle and take it far beyond the bounds, the descriptive of "hyper" is well-deserved.
Here is an audio clip from my interview with Pastor Gene about this article. Additional information has come to my attention since that interview that is incorporated herein.
Back to the Futur(ists)
It seems like a great deal that goes on in this orthodox versus heretical eschatological debate hinges upon a war over terminology. That should not be surprising, since positions which do not have historical credibility of their own or have other inherent flaws which would make persons rightly reluctant to consider them off the bat, will often, like the parasites that they are, co-opt terminology which either paints a better face on the view or cloaks it with a word or phrase that has historically "good" meaning so as to, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscate the issue. First off, let me say there are many people who have fallen into this trap unwittingly and don't realize they have bought into the language game or do not realize its importance. I am not trying to read into anyone's overt intentions but rather examine underlying motivations which are common with views that have problems with general acceptance, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, at this point in our culture, it seems backward and intolerant to be opposed to abortion. Therefore, many times, those of us who are opposed to abortion will refer to ourselves as "pro-life." While that descriptive serves a purpose to a point, the fact is, in terms of this debate, we are very much against abortion. We are not simply in favour of "life" in some fuzzy-slippered tree-hugging way. In fact many of us are highly in favour of the death penalty. I have zero problem with killing murderers. I DO have a problem with murdering babies. Thus, I don't think we should shy away from the label of "anti-abortion," in fact I think it is less than forthright to do so. I don't shy away from the labels of anti-murder, anti-racist, anti-child abuse, or any number of things that I'm opposed to on moral grounds. I don't need to pretend and or act as being against abortion is something that I need to cover in flowery language. Yes of course I am in favour of life, but in this particular case, I am in favour of life by being specifically against abortion. Abortion is the specific referent in that discussion, and that is what I am against.
So bringing us back to the eschatological discussion, sometimes hyperpreterists, and well-meaning non-heretics, will say those of my eschatological persuasion (sometimes it even happens unfortunately with those who are of my own eschatological persuasion - ugh!!!) are simply a variant of futurist. This is boldly historically inaccurate and nonsensical. One cannot be considered a futurist simply because they believe the physical, bodily return of Christ and the physical, bodily resurrection are future. This discussion is framed with an historical Christian context. ALL CHRISTIANS believe those things. They have been part and parcel of the historical foundations of the Faith for millennia. Things which are to be presumed in common are not items for which labels indicating diversity are created. Therefore, it is completely redundant to say within a Christian (historical) context that a person is a futurist with regards to these items. Those things are presumed and subsumed within the title of "Christian." This would be about as silly as claiming all Christians are preterists simply because they believe the Messiah has already come. All Christians believe the Messiah has already come, so there is no need to make a distinction between Christians on something that all Christians have always believed (the prolific machinations of a vocal Internet cultic teaching notwithstanding).
Therefore, in historical context, the terms "futurist" and "preterist" have been used to describe a person's belief on the timing of debatable events, most notably, the Great Tribulation, and sometimes, the "coming," that is described in Matthew 24. There are various levels of preterism, some of which do not take the "coming" in Matthew 24 to be a first century event and separate out the Great Tribulation from that language. I'm not one of those, but I recognize their existence.
This point becomes very patently obvious when one throws in the other players into this eschatological dispute - namely historicism and idealism. When those two terms are examined, it is very obvious the issue in dispute is NOT the timing (i.e. futuricity) of the Second Coming or General Resurrection, it is regarding the timing and nature of the events leading up to that point. In orthodoxy, historicists are not those who believe the event known as the Second Coming is manifested throughout history typically through the church age. That is preposterous. Similarly, in orthodoxy, idealists are not those who believe the Second Coming of Christ is manifested ideally throughout the church age, but rather both of these views hold this is a discrete and distinct event yet in our future (even if there are manifestations and applications throughout this age). All these views hold the futuricity in common because that is a basic Christian belief. It does not make any of these views futurist, it makes them Christian. 
The Hyperpreterist Spin
Recently there have been some admirable and forthright admissions by some hyperpreterists that they have in fact changed and/or co-opted the historic meaning . These particular hyperpreterists, although conceding the historic point, believe by usage hyperpreterists have de facto now in fact owned the meaning. On one hand, I agree in that the hyperpreterists' very strategic usage has been enabled by the orthodox who sold the semantical farm with little resistance. However, the fight is hardly done, and this orthodox person believes the tide can be turned, and do exhort those orthodox with the following:
We must not let them get away with calling themselves "preterists" or "consistent preterists," or believers in "fulfilled eschatology." The word "preterist" is a good word. The disciples of Hymenęus are not preterists; their "dispensable eschatology" makes them heretics. 
Strangely, these same hyperpreterists justify their redefinition by claiming "R.C. Sproul said so" with the implication that R.C. Sproul would NOT approve of the use of the terminology of "hyperpreterism."  The exact quote of Sproul is thusly: "Maybe the terms that best describe the two positions are full Preterism and partial Preterism." (The Last Days According to Jesus, pp.156-157). Using this quote Roderick Edwards had the chutzpah to claim, "The term "full preterism" is 100% certified correct label by R.C. Sproul Sr." (see footnote 8) Really? On my planet, the phrase "maybe" doesn't quite carry that force. Now before the hyperpreterist spin gets anyone too daffy let us not forget that this is the same R.C Sproul who works in the same ministry (Ligonier Ministries) with Keith Mathison who edited the book "When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to HYPERPRETERISM" [all caps mine]. I also have it on Mathison's own word that Sproul does not feel the term is inappropriate, and if the book (The Last Days According to Jesus) had been written later, many things would have been stated differently (not necessarily that particular statement.) Will this stop the hyperpreterist opportunistic exploitation? I doubt it. I also note Dennis Swanson's comments to this move:
However, this concession [DDW - Sproul's comment - which again I believe he would not say if he could write his book today seeing how it has been prostituted by hyperpreterists] ignores the fact that the Preteristic method of interpretation has a long history; a history that never included the novelties that the IPA [International Preterist Association, a group headed by Ed Stevens that tries to pawn off their heretical wares at ETS conventions] and their associates have introduced since the early 1970s. To take the long-established theological and hermeneutical construct of Preterism and then grant to usurpers the high ground that the terms "full" or "consistent" denote, while relegating the established position to that of "partial" or some other weaker label is to yield ground without reason....The HP [hyperpreterist] adherents are simply seeking to usurp a birthright that is not theirs. [all notes in brackets are mine] 
Very recently [DDW - mid-2006 at the time of the original writing of this piece], former hyperpreterist-turned-preterist-idealist  Todd Dennis decided the terminology that his site (The PreteristArchive - a site I still do NOT recommend as it is purports to be "unbiased" towards hyperpreterist material and hosts copious quantities of heretical material in a potentially positive light) would utilize "historic preterist" and "modern preterist." It was interesting to me at that time that Todd had made that change that Roderick Edwards attempted to claim that this was simply wonderful as "modern" was meant to mean more "fully developed" (unlike my puny little underdeveloped view - bah!) Here are Roderick's own words to that effect:
So, the re-classification is an acknowledgement that:
1. Full/Modern Preterism is derived from an earlier, less developed version, called "historic preterism"
2. Full/Modern Preterism is in the systematic stage of building the preterist view into a complete system 
However, that is in fact utterly FALSE. It was much to my delight that Todd Dennis has disabused Roderick and any others of this notion by clearly stating his reclassification of "modern" is meant to be understood as "new" not "more fully developed" and that his classifications are not intended to be calls for new definitions, but simply categorizations for clarity on his own site. Under his new classification system, Todd states, "Narrowest Range in Time and Doctrine - Only Known Representations of this View Are From 20th-21st Century)."  This should raise the flag of "buyer beware" - in most cases THEOLOGICAL NOVELTY IS NOT A GOOD THING.
Todd had since gone further however, and though I personally like him very much, I believe he has engaged in semantical sophistry by implicitly joining ranks with hyperpreterists, who, not being content to hijack the term "preterist," have decided that they would redefine "hyperpreterism" as well, claiming it is actually a small portion of their own number who take "full preterism" too far, a redundancy of the most supreme sort. ALL "full preterism" is too far, and one can't avoid a goring by simply deflecting the ox to one's partner in crime. . At the time of this current edition of this article [March 2007] (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterist/defined_classifications.html), Todd has taken the redefinition spin to an even greater velocity by claiming that "hyperpreterists" are simply preterists (who he now does state include "historic" preterists - see [3-1]) who focus too much on AD70, "such as in teachings that the gospel ceased in AD70, or that there is no redemption after AD70...." How any "historic preterist" believes "such as in teachings that the gospel ceased in AD70, or that there is no redemption after AD70," is beyond my limited imagination - and Todd provides no examples, just an implied assertion that "hyperpreterism" (redefined) can be held by "historic" or "modern" preterists. This seems to be a bit of well-poisoning in addition to semantics.
So, Now Class, a History Lesson....
Hyperpreterists, in their theft of the label of preterism for themselves exclusively, will often trot out the dictionary definition in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary which states:
2. (Theol.) One who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled. Farrar.
Now folks here is where we actually have to do some critical thinking rather than just nod with glassy eyes at whatever soundbyte that can be regurgitated that affirms what we want to believe .
The source that the dictionary gives for this definition is Farrar (1831-1903.) Notice what this definition does not say - it does not say ALL Bible prophecy has been fulfilled. It does not say the resurrection and Second Coming have been fulfilled [though Farrar did seem to have two referents for the "Second Coming" one in the past and one yet future - so to be specific it does not deny a future Second Coming.] Ironically, this turns out to be sloppy as we shall later on when referencing the Oxford English Dictionary. Farrar considered himself a preterist, and yet he did not believe ALL prophecy was fulfilled. How is it that Farrar could consider himself a preterist if the definition of preterist, as hyperpreterists would have us believe, which HE ALLEGEDLY WROTE, is a person who believes ALL prophecy is fulfilled? He couldn't. Farrar himself also listed a group of men that he labeled as "preterists" (see here) and yet none of them believed that ALL prophecy was fulfilled either (as admitted by the hyperpreterist-slanted site where that is found where all four men are listed as "historic preterists.") How can that be if the hyperpreterist insistence is correct? It can't be. This is not honestly dealing with the definition.
Farrar also stated:
It has been usual to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar... was the founder of the Preterist School... But to me it seems that the founder of the Preterist School is none other than St. John himself. (The Early Days of Christianity)
We know that Alcasar (17th century) was not a hyperpreterist. Yet he founded the preterist school? Did he have a time machine?
Here though is a real clincher. Farrar further notes:
There have been three great schools of Apocalyptic interpretation :- 1. The Pręterists, who regard the book as having been mainly fulfilled. 2. The Futurists, who refer it to events which are still wholly future. 3. The Continuous-Historical Interpreters, who see in it an outline of Christian history from the days of St. John down to the End of all things. (see here) The Early Days of Christianity
It is patently obvious that he was NOT juxtaposing WHOLLY FULFILLED with WHOLLY FUTURE. He used "mainly fulfilled" to describe the preterist position and that is in fact the orthodox preterist position, not the hyperpreterist position, on Revelation.
Furthermore, Farrar's definition was written BEFORE there was any significant existence of "full preterists" and thus he was not facing that challenge when authoring that definition. By his application of that definition to himself, and others who would today be considered partial preterists, it is a historical fact that my definition is correct, otherwise it would have to be assumed there were no preterists at all (and why would Farrar make a definition for a nonexistent group) prior to this recent full preterist movement, and that is untrue. There WERE "partial preterists" (who back then, were just simply called preterists - as should we.)
This term also predates Farrar's use in 1882 in his work The Early Days of Christianity (though not by as much as I had previously and mistakenly thought and said on The Narrow Mind) and is applied in theological discourse to mean "partial preterist" - I can cite theological scholarly works that do just this - which are more authoritative than a general dictionary definition (which still supports my position in its historical context.) There are very respected comparative books in Christian theology that represent the "preterist" view in contrast to others and the representatives of preterism are all "partial preterists" - how is it that they do that if the hyperpreterist insistence is correct? Why is not the hyperpreterist view EVER in any of these accepted works? Because it is NOT accepted as a valid eschatological view within mainstream Christianity.
As Tommy Ice states:
You might be interested to know that in 1843, when the journal Bibliotheca Sacra was first started, it taught Preterism. You can go back and look at the early articles - Scholars such as Moses Stewart [sic - Moses Stuart] and James Robinson wrote for the journal in those early years. It was not until 1934, when Dallas Seminary took control of Bib Sac, that it became a futurist organ. (The Destructive View of Preterism)
There is early preterism in people like Eusebius. In fact, his work The Proof of the Gospel is full of preterism in relationship to the Olivet Discourse. ("Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other Issues" audio tape 12/95)
Continuing, I also cite Nelson Publishing, a MAJOR Christian publisher, and publisher of the New King James Bible, which states on page 2195 in the Study Bible - "preterists view the book [Revelation] as referring almost exclusively to first century events." Which is more of an authority for a theological definition? Dictionary.com (home of the above-cited Webster's definition) or numerous theologically specific works including one of the top Christian publishers? And Farrar as shown above is being misused for his definition is being yanked out of its historical context.
This is reiterated by other Study Bibles and by the facts of history. Zondervan, another MAJOR Christian publisher in the NIV study Bible states "Preterists understand the book [Revelation] exclusively in terms of its first century setting, claiming most of its events have already taken place." The NIV definition is credited to Robert Mounce and David O'Brown. Nelson doesn't divide up the sections by contributors but their list of contributors is extensive and is the who's who of Christian scholarship. The NT chief Editor was H. Wayne House.
So now two major Christian Bible publishers have given us definitions, and the facts of history bear this out. By hyperpreterist logic with regards to this word, there must not have been any preterists until their movement came into being, yet this word "preterist" predates them with Farrar himself being a preterist that did not believe all was over. What Farrar was referring to is all these things had their application in the first century, i.e. the millennium began then etc. In light of his application of this definition to himself, unless we think he was so benighted that he confused himself so royally, we have to interpret his definition consistently with his application, and he applied to what today would be called partial preterists. Back then there was no need for "partial" to be added, that is the only kind of preterist that there was in any numbers. Hyperpreterism as a distinct movement began about thirty years ago. There were scattered works prior to that, but no significant movement or numbers.
There are some who claim I have dismissed the Webster's and dictionary.com definition because I disagreed with it and point out Princeton is also noted as support in their preferred source, Webster's. However, in context, it is nearly certain that Princeton's source is Farrar! This is akin to claiming all the early church fathers cite a late date for Revelation when it is near certain fact that their source all comes from one man - Irenaeus! That doesn't fly for hyperpreterists in dating Revelation yet all of a sudden it is peachy in this instance. Just because the same thing is repeated ten times doesn't make it ten sources. It is one source repeated ten times. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they are advocating Princeton in that definition as the paragon of theological precision seeing how they spelled Revelation as Revelations. And laughably, the Princeton quote relied upon by the hyperpreterists STILL proves my point. How? The word "Apocalypse" can be taken two ways which are not mutually exclusive - it can refer to the whole book of Revelation or the Apocalypse that is described in Revelation, this is called a part for the whole, a linguistic convention. It is apparent by Farrar's practice that he was referring to the apocalyptic events of Revelation as fulfilled - something that partial preterists do in fact believe.
I now further cite a very well respected commentary on Revelation, Revelation: Four Views: edited by Steve Gregg:
In contrast, those who hold to the classical preterism of centuries past take a high view of the inspection of Scripture and date the Book of Revelation just prior to 70AD. They are capable of pointing out many details in Revelation that they believe were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and some see in the later chapters the prediction of the fall of Rome and beyond to the Second Coming of Christ. What I am representing as preterism in this volume is this theological conservative early-date preterism that has had worthy advocates for several centuries.
Since my participation on Wikipedia, and thanks to David Green who researched the Oxford English Dictionary following my interview with Roderick Edwards, I believe I have come even closer to the bottom of this mystery. The word preterist does indeed pre-date Farrar, but not by much. It was apparently "coined" by theologian G.S. Faber in his three-volume work The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy. I have been fortunate to obtain this work, I have volumes 2 and 3 in their original format and a photocopy of volume 1. Unfortunately the publishers are different and thus there is some discrepancy in the years (though 1843 appears to be the agreed-upon date for the "coinage" of the word "preterist" by Faber) and without giving the books a thorough read, I skimmed through all three to find the reference without success, thus, I cannot unequivocally give the date. I do plan on a thorough read in the soon future. But here is what was found:
Preterist comes from preter, an aphetic form of preterite, which derives from Latin pręteritus "gone by, past", formed from pręterire, a compound composed of pręter "past" + ir "to go". If you've ever studied a foreign language, you might recall the simple past tense of verbs being referred to as preterite, and now you know why. It is for that same reason that preterists are so known, because they believe that the subject of Biblical prophecies have "gone by" or already happened. The term was apparently coined by G.S. Faber for use in a theological work in 1843, so that is how it came to be used in theological circles. He wrote: "To consider certain vituperative prophecies...as already accomplished in the course of the first and second centuries; whence, to commentators of this School, we may fitly apply the name of Preterists." 
Faber was NOT referring to what is known as "full preterism." By Farrar's time, a few decades later, it was common enough to refer to the group which had already existed who believed as "partial preterists" do today. I found another interesting tidbit from the daughter of Samuel Lee (1783-1853) who was known as the Father of Syriac Studies in Britain:
EVER since his translation of Eusebius's 'Theophania,' my father's mind had been more or less occupied on the subject of Prophecy, and he became convinced that the views which he entertained, known as the Preterist, were those held by the early Church. The subject was one of absorbing interest to him during the few last years of his life, and as a child I can remember the animated conversations between him and my mother on Prophecy in their walks about our beautiful garden, or in the leisure of meal times, she holding the more general and popular opinions of the restoration of the Jews to their own land, etc. 
She notes "In the year 1849 he published his 'Inquiry into the Nature, Progress and End of Prophecy.'" I look forward to obtaining this work myself.
In her memoirs of her father, she also reproduced a 4/4/1846 correspondence from G.S. Faber (the "coiner" of the word "preterist") which states in part as follows:
I was fully aware of the difference in our views on Prophecy. You, I know, are a Preterist, and a modern party among the Tractarians are all Futurists. Now, as I am neither, I must either condemn myself or set both Preterists and Futurists down as mistaken.
By way of contrary theological definition, however, Todd Dennis has uncovered a 1883 (post-Faber who used the word at a minimum to denote the orthodox and post-Farrar who unequivocably used the word to describe the orthodox without a hint of the hyperpreterist heresy) work edited by H.P. Smith (Glossary of Terms and Phrases) stating:
"Preterist. [L. praeteritus, past] 1. One who lives in the past rather than in the present. 2. One who regards the Apocalypse as a series of predictions which have already been fulfilled."
I would state once again that there simply were not any hyperpreterists of any quantity and there definitely were orthodox preterists of quantity to claim that there simply wasn't a word for them. Notice there is no other definition in that work for the much more common presence of so-called "partial preterists." Did H.P. Smith deny their existence? Doubtful. Without further information, all of my prior points that, and the weight of evidence and logic remains. While it certainly is possible that this source may in fact be claiming hyperpreterism is preterism that doesn't shave properly with Ocam's Razor.
Todd Dennis also lists the following:
G.S. Hitchcock: "The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D." (The Beasts and the Little Horn, p. 7.)
Todd didn't list the date source on that, but I researched to find it was 1911. Now gentle reader, ask yourself - did Alcasar found hyperpreterism? No.
In my own readings I found a 1921 by David S. Clark stating:
Interpreters have been usually classified as 1. praeterist, regarding the prophecies as already fulfilled; 2. futurist, placing the whole book in the times of the millennium and the second advent; 3. hhistorical, the fulfillment issuing int he continuous progress of the church and kingdom on to the end. This classification is not exact as no one can be altogether a praeterist or a futurist. The Message from Patmos, page 8
The historical evidence is painfully conclusive. I am a preterist without any qualification needed. The heretics are not despite their nearly shrill attempts to claim it. For instance, as of this date (8/16/06), on the PreteristArchive, hyperpreterist Ken Davies pulls this slick move:
"The term "preterist" can be found in the Unabridged versions of Webster's Dictionary. I've found the definition as far back as 1913. It says -- "2. (Theol.) One who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled. Farrar." Dictionaries are by definition authoritative compilations of word meanings, and the inclusion of a word is significant."
Well Ken, I have found the definition as far back as 1843, and it isn't used exclusively for your gangrenous heresy - in fact, it is highly probably that the hyperpreterist heresy wasn't even a blip on the radar screen at that time.
I note as a historical oddity that in my research I have found it claimed the word "preterist" was actually coined in 1962 by Vladimir Nabokov in a work called "Pale Fire" in which it is stated in Canto One: "A preterist, one who collects cold nests." This is obviously not the original coinage of the term, but perhaps its first application outside of a theological context??? I confess I do not know.
In closing, what I believe is what has historically been meant by the term "preterist," and we should not give up this valid moniker without a fight and let the heretics control our language. Do Calvinists let the hyperCalvinists do this? Do we hear them referring to themselves as "partial Calvinists"? No. Preterism is a theological term with a good history. Don't give it up without a fight. It is the heretics who must add a qualifier, we have no need to except perhaps in way of introduction to distinguish ourselves from this small, vocal, and militant minority. Also, do not play into the hands of semantical games with using their loaded term of "full preterist." If you reject my designation of NeoHymenæan (which I do not use in every instance) , I urge you to use the time-tested methodology of adding a "hyper" to the designation and refer to them as hyperpreterists - our theology is like unto a planet orbiting the sun, that is our sphere of reference - those views that are completely out of the universe of Christianity do not share the terminology of orthodoxy. Or take the route of Pastor Seraiah and adopt the new designation for this new heretical systemization of an ancient error - pantelism. But my friend, the term "preterist" belongs to you. Claim it.
 My main point of contention in this piece is the utter co-opting of the term "preterism" to refer exclusively to heretical preterism, with the Christian view having to be burdened with a qualifier. I will argue that the grounding principle is relation to the historic Christian faith, and with that in sight, preterism belongs firmly to the orthodox.Go Back
 There are some who, at times, loosely use the terms "preterist" and "futurist" when not speaking of a particular doctrinal defining outlook in toto, but as describing a particular position with regards to a particular passage when referring to Jews and Christians, i.e. Christianity takes a preteristic view of the "first coming" of the Messiah. For the reasons noted above, I take exception to this type of usage, though I once did so, because of the needless blurring of clearly defined words. However, even in these usages, it is recognizes that Christians in general are not "preterists" within their own community but that phrase has a defined referent in Christianity. I find at times these tactics are used to try to soften the blow of a preterist position when it is first introduced to a futurist so as they don't stare at the preterist open-mouthed as if they just sprouted a third eyeball before their very eyes. Go Back
 In a 2006 interview with hyperpreterist Roderick Edwards he candidly admitted that fact. Max and Tim King have stated likewise. Others such as Michael Bennett, Samuel Frost, and Virgil Vaduva have not been so consistently forthright (however see here.) In fact, Samuel Frost stated "Gary DeMar is not a Preterist, he is a futurist." How many credible theologians outside of Samuel's cultic circle think Demar is a futurist? Go Back
I also note that this is a bit of a diversion from the extreme swing of my complaint - that being that the term preterism belongs solely to the heretics, and the orthodox must accept a qualifier. If one was going to jettison the grounding point of the historic faith, then it would seem, as Todd Dennis of the PreteristArchive has done, that preterism would then be an "umbrella" term that belongs to neither with qualifiers being necessary for all views. While I reject that position as ignoring the pivotal foundational referent - i.e. the historic Christian faith - which of course hyperpreterists do - that would be the path to take for hyperpreterists to take that aren't interested in semantical gamesmanship.Go Back
 Todd Dennis now describes himself as a preterist-idealist and has stated that his view is still undergoing some radical changes. At this point I am uncertain as to where he will eventually "land" but it appears that his denial of the future bodily resurrection and return of Christ still stands, and thus, the heretical conclusions of hyperpretism might still remain in his view. However, I am unclear on this at this point in time.Go Back
 This statement appears to have been removed from Todd's site though the fact is that it remains fundamentally true. It would not surprise me to find alleged hyperpreterist material dating back to the times of the early Church - there were resurrection deniers back then which were soundly condemned. However, as any systematic view with any numbers, hyperpreterism (in the most earliest estimate) had as its catalyst the publishing of The Parousia by James Stuart Russell in GET YEAR, and the recent wave began with Max King's The Parousia and the Cross and Where is the Promise of His Coming in GET YEAR. This is without a doubt a novelty.Go Back
 Samuel Frost actually claimed that at his site (http://thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=48), "This must mean that issues of "sin", "death" and "law", which some preterists have written off, are "not for today" (along with the Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel). Here, it appears, Dennis is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries have always called hyper-preterism. This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord's Table, or church officers." That is beyond dishonest. I have had numerous discussions with Samuel Frost and not ONCE did he bring up that point, nor have I ever seen that argument before Roderick Edwards started on his redefinition campaign. However, ironically, one of Samuel's hallmarks of "hyperpreterism" (the denial of the need for church officers) is a something that Roderick himself believes! The irony is thick. At the time Samuel's statement was posted, I ran a search for "hyperpreterism" on his site and there was not one reference to such a designation that he claims they have "always" used. So let's see - no prior references on his site - no references in our discussions - no reference at all until after Roderick's interview with me when Roderick began his own word-spinning. Connect the dots.Go Back