The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

When a premise, assertion or formula is put forth, the true way to test it is to push it to its conclusions. Systematically applying a premise will quickly reveal if the premise itself is flawed.

When it comes to hyperpreterism, it is built on 3 primary premises with 1 overarching premise.

PRIMARY PREMISES OF HYPERPRETERISM

1. That Jesus returned once & for all in the year AD70
2. That the resurrection of the believers happened in AD70
3. That the Judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in AD70

OVERARCHING PREMISE OF HYPERPRETERISM

• That for whatever reason, God for nearly 2000 years has been unable or unwilling to make sure that the Church has a basic & correct understanding of eschatology.

If you keep these points in focus, you cannot & will not be duped or conned by hyperpreterism’s pretended “exegesis”. Hyperpreterism is mainly an eschatological movement & typically does not venture too far from that scope, but when it does the fatal flaws of the hyperpreterist premise glare like a shard of glass stuck in the sole of your foot.

Let’s take a look at a few ways hyperpreterism reveals its flawed premises when applied to other “ologies”.

SYSTEMATIC HYPERPRETERIST SOTERIOLOGY = UNIVERSALISM

When the 3 primary hyperpreterist premises are applied to soteriology (salvation issues), it must conclude with some form of universalism (no one is ultimately condemned). Look, if Jesus has already come then a major purpose of His return is complete — that some have been resurrected unto life & others to eternal damnation (Mt 25:46). If the Judgment of the wicked & righteous is complete, then there is no more condemnation & no one can rightly speak of hell or even annihilationism (even the soul/spirit ceasing to exist). Most hyperpreterists try to reject this “logical” conclusion (as I tried while I was a hyperpreterist) but the facts are the facts. If someone tries to “consistently” apply hyperpreterism to soteriology, the only conclusion is some form of universalism. Only hyperpreterists that either do NOT consistently apply or have not considered how hyperpreterism applies to soteriology can avoid from becoming some form of universalists. Hyperpreterism indeed has quite an active & vocal faction of universalists.

Another area where hyperpreterism has attempted to venture is in the area of Creationism.

SYSTEMATIC HYPERPRETERIST CREATIONISM = EVOLUTIONISM

Because asserting the 3 primary premises of hyperpreterism requires a radical redefinition of historic Christian interpretation of the Bible, this redefined approach opens up hyperpreterists to not only redefine eschatological interpretation but also to press their wild speculations into other areas. They often try to “hyperpreterize” the Creation & Flood accounts so that those events aren’t about the physical universe or the physical planet but merely about some “spiritualized” notion. (see a review of Beyond Creation Science, a hyperpreterist book on this topic). In this hyperpreterist redefined Creation story, we are told that Genesis isn’t about the creation of the planet earth, nor of physical beings such as animals or humans. As a matter of fact we are told that Adam was NOT the first human being, but merely the first “covenantal man”. We are led to believe that other humans existed BEFORE Adam (hence evolution). A small, but growing faction of hyperpreterists adhere to this “covenantal creationism” as it is called. At any rate, hyperpreterism breeds rabid speculations such as this.

It is only a matter of time before the hyperpreterist penchant speculation catches up to other “ologies”.

SYSTEMATIC HYPERPRETERIST HOLY SPIRIT = ANTITRINITARIANISM

Hyperpreterists are rabid rejectors of anything “traditional” — they MUST be since all of historic Christianity is against them — this includes pre-Roman Catholic Christianity, Roman Catholic Christianity, Reformed Christianity, & Modern Evangelical Christianity. They love to try to project themselves as staunch advocates of the concept of “Sola Scriptura” (Bible alone) but instead of holding to the same notion as that motto first declared by the Reformers…the REAL Reformers, the hyperpreterist version of “Sola Scriptura” really amounts to “private interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20) & to hell with nearly 2000 years of unified Christian interpretation. So, when hyperpreterists get around to applying their heresy more “consistently”, they will soon see that they have no room for a Triune God — I mean, antitrinitarians have been claiming the concept of the Trinity isn’t even biblical, that it was merely an “institutional Church” doctrine imposed upon the Church, that some creed or council merely dreamed it up & forced it on other Christians — This fits perfectly with anti-creedal, anti-council, anti-confessional hyperpreterist mentality. But even if a hyperpreterist somehow still adheres to the Trinity, if you apply the hyperpreterist premise about everything ending in AD70 you might conclude that the only purpose of the Holy Spirit was to guide those original apostles into “all truth about things yet to come” (John 16:13). And now that that goal is complete according to hyperpreterists — what need would there be of a Holy Spirit? I mean, according to hyperpreterists we’re supposed to simply apply their redefined hermeneutics & wala! we all can become hyperpreterists.

Watch for these & more wacky conclusions as you see hyperpreterists try to “consistently” & “logically” apply their flawed premises.

SYSTEMATIC HYPERPRETERIST “OUT OF THE BOX” = OUT OF THE BIBLE

Though there are certainly more systematic breakdowns we could discuss when hyperpreterism’s premises are applied, I want to finish on the catch phrase “out of the box” thinking. A hyperpreterist will often attempt to get an unsuspecting Christian to “think outside the box” & what person wants to be viewed as narrow minded, so of course many Christians will fall for this ploy by the hyperpreterists. What the hyperpreterists REALLY MEAN by this catch phrase is for you to think outside of the Bible…or at least outside of the 2000 years of historic Christian interpretation of the Bible. Again, hyperpreterists will employ the slogan, “Sola Scriptura” & unfortunately many Reformed Christians hear this phrase & get all starry-eyed & ready to buy anything the person says — because they think that person must be a type of reformer. The hyperpreterist premises are NOTHING like anything in historic Christian understanding. Even the Reformers did NOT depart from historic Christianity — they merely opposed Papal Roman Catholicism. The Reformers immediately penned numerous confessions & other documents that AGREED completely with historic Christian interpretation. Hyperpreterism asks us to “think outside the box” when in reality they mean to think outside the historic, biblical scope of Christianity & instead embrace the novelty & heresy of hyperpreterism. Don’t be fooled.

To conclude, I’d like to quote the 19th century American theologian, Samuel Miller regarding how heresies operate & sneak their way into Christianity:

When heresy rises in an evangelical body, it is never frank and open. It always begins by skulking, and assuming a disguise. Its advocates, when together, boast of great improvements, and congratulate one another on having gone greatly beyond the “old dead orthodoxy,” and on having left behind many of its antiquated errors: but when taxed with deviations from the received faith, they complain of the unreasonableness of their accusers, as they “differ from it only in words.” This has been the standing course of errorists ever since the apostolic age. They are almost never honest and candid as a party, until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Thus it was with Arius in the fourth century, with Pelagius in the fifth, with Arminius and his companions in the seventeenth, with Amyraut and his associates in France soon afterwards, and with the Unitarians in Massachusetts, toward the close of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries [& hyperpreterists in the twenty-first century -- my addition because it fits so well in this list of heresies]. They denied their real tenets, evaded examination or inquiry, declaimed against their accusers as merciless bigots and heresy-hunters, and strove as long as they could to appear to agree with the most orthodox of their neighbours; until the time came when, partly from inability any longer to cover up their sentiments, and partly because they felt strong enough to come out, they at length avowed their real opinions.
-Samuel Miller, 1841

Part two of the butt-whupping

Brief summary: This is part two of a somewhat humourous critique that I will be doing on the audio version of Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This is the second part and still barely gets into the opening chapter of the first book. I explain further why I am doing this to begin with and why, although I am handling this is a joking manner, infantile reduction of Christianity in American Christianity is a major problem.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

So I am now starting on Brown’s 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his eighth argument:

Pages 228-238>

But what is fatal to the literal sense is eminently favourable to the figurative. Need I ask any familiar with the figurative language of Scripture, and with the scriptural figuration of this very period, familiar with the best writers in every language and every age, or himself accustomed to think and speak in vivid style, whether a resurrection of the slain witnesses of Christ of every period, to people, possess, and hold the supremacy of the earth with their Lord, be not a conception worthy of the Spirit of God to dictate, and inexpressibly refreshing for the soul of an oppressed Church to be filled with? In this very book, the figurative resurrection of the witnesses for the truth is thus expressed: - “And after three days and an half, the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet.” - (Rev. xi. 11.) It is indeed part of the classic style of Scripture in depicting this very ‘ period. For example, Will the Jews be brought in? “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, O my people, I will open your grave, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live; and I will place you in your own land.” - (Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14.) “After two days will he revive us; in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.” - (Hos. vi. 2.) This certainly is figurative.

Again, Will this resurrection of Israel be a mighty blessing to the Gentile world? “What shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?” As of the return of a prodigal it is said, “He was dead and is alive again;” and of the change which passes upon the believer in justification, it is said, - “He shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life;” and of sanctification, that he is “quickened who was dead in trespasses and in sins,” so it is said of the church; - “Thy dead men shall live,” just as it is said of the opposite party, - “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and make all memory of them to perish.” - (Isa. xxvi. 13, 14.)

I have said further, that this idea is current coin in all vivid thinking, in every age and every language.

“When the venerable priest,” says Merle D’Aubigne, speaking of John Huss, “had been summoned by Sigismund’s order before the Council of Constance, and had been thrown into prison, the chapel of Bethlehem, in which he had proclaimed the gospel and the future triumphs of Christ, occupied his mind much more than his own defence. One night the holy martyr saw in imagination, from the depths of his dungeon, the pictures of Christ that he had painted on the walls of his oratory effaced by the pope and his bishops. This vision distressed him; but on the next day he saw many painters occupied in restoring these figures in greater number and in brighter colours. As soon as their task was ended, the painters, who were surrounded by an immense crowd, exclaimed, ‘Now let the popes and bishops come, they shall never efface them more! And many people rejoiced in Bethlehem, and I with them, adds John Huss. ‘Busy yourself with your defence rather than with your dream, ‘ said his faithful griend, the knight of Chlum, to whom he had communicated this vision. ‘I am no dreamer,’ replied Huss, ‘but I maintain this for certain, that the image of Christ will never be effaced. They have wished to destroy it, but it shall be painted afresh in all hearts by much better preachers than myself. The nation that loves Christ will rejoice at this. And I, awaking from among the dead, and rising, so to speak, from my grave, shall leap with great joy.
Deo respondebitis et mihi - “When a hundred years shall have revolved ye shall answer to God and to me.” He also refers to a brief addressed by Pope Adrian, in 1523, to the Diet at Nuremburg, containing these words: - “The Heretics Huss and Jerome are now Alive Again in the Person of Martin Luther.”

These last illustrations supple a complete answer to the only plausible argument that I have met with against the figurative sense of our vision. “Surely,” it is said, “the resurrection must correspond with the death. If the one be figurative, so may the other; but if the death be literal — as we have admitted to be the case with both the martyr-companies in this vision — then must the resurrection be the same.” This argument is adduced by all literalists as triumphant. But though the principle of it is undoubtedly correct, Mr. Elliot, who among others urges it with his accutomed force, has, in the above illustration, himself furnished enough to show that it is pointless in the present case. John Huss, before his death, anticipated the day when, awakening from the dead, and rising from his grave, he would leap with great joy.” Suppose, then, I were to reason thus. “A resurrection ought to be of the same character with the death from which it is a revival: but Huss’ death was literal and personal; therefore it must have been his own literal and bodily resurrection which he anticipated on the eve of his death.” But it was not. Did Huss, then, expect no resurrection of himself personally? Of course he did; but that was not the burden of his thoughts at the time. He was filled with the thought of the eventual triumph of the truth he was dying for, and that was the resurrection of himself which he so joyfully anticipated. Take now the other case. Pope Adrian said to the Diet at Nuremberg, “The heretics Huss and Jerome are now alive in the person of Martin Luther.” But the death which Huss and Jerome died was a literal and bodily one: Shall we therefore say that Adrian meant to tell the Diet that Huss and Jerome were not figuratively, but literally and personally alive in Martin Luther? Absurd. It is true that Huss and Jerome were literally slain, just as the witnesses in our vision were; but as this did not in the least prevent Huss himself anticipating a glorious resurrection in the person of his successors in the faith, nor the enemies of both from testifying that they had risen and were actualy living in the man who of all other best represented them, so neither does it hinder us from seeing in this vision the same figurative resurrection of the slain witnesses of Jesus in the millennial day. The only difference is, that what was realized at the Reformation, in Luther and his compeers, was but as a drop in the bucket — “the little cloud as a man’s hand” — compared with the millennial resuscitation, not only in point of numbers but the completeness of the triumph. For while Huss and Jerome, as witnesses for Christ, were put completely down by the antichristian party in their day, Luther and his coadjutors at the Reformation were not able to put them completely down in their turn. But at the time of our vision, the witnesses for Christ of every age shall not only “live and reign” in their successors “for a thousand years,” but “the rest of the dead (the opposing party) will not live again until the thousand years shall be fulfilled — This is the first resurrection.” And “blessed” surely, “shall he be” whose lot is cast in such times, and “holy< .em> shall he be that hath part in the first resurrection” — representing in his person the noble army of martyrs, yet without being exposes,as they were, to be crushed and swept off the stage, merely because Jesus and his truth were dearer to them than life itself!

Okay now I confess he completely lost me in some places and in others I would not agree. However, I did want to keep his collection of arguments intact for the reader to judge for themselves.

But I have a lot of catching up to do. I started writing my next segment of notes on the Brown book.

The U.S. Army has a slogan, “an army of one” but recently a hyperpreterist referred to a single effort against them as “an army of 1000″ (Chuck Coty — hyperpreterist). This comment came about after administrators of the quasi-conservative hyperpreterist website began breaking their own stated policies not to mention the name of one of their detractors. But as I’ve said before, one characteristic of a cult is that it tries to shut down or ignore all outside critique, & most especially critiques from FORMER group members. They instead want to isolate the group (especially newer members) from anything that might call into question their views. Here is a quote from Coty, advocating that very isolation:

I keep hearing that we will no longer mention his name and I see it come up time and again. It’s like a disease and until a conscious effort is made to rid this guy from our midst, he will prove to be a continued stumbling block. If nothing else do it for the weaker brethren and assume me to be in that category. My walk with Christ is disturbed by the mere mention of his antics. Let’s assume that I am not alone on this and that there are others who struggle with this stuff.

Mr. Coty, the “stumbling block” is the UNCHRISTIAN premise of the entire hyperpreterist view & your administrators/leaders know this. This is why they feel compelled to do something about it — this is why they keep sending me emails & keep mentioning my name against their own stated policy. Who am I? No one. The “army of a 1000″ is the power of Truth. Truth has a way of turning one lone voice into the power of an army of 1000.

Hyperpreterists CAN’T get around the fact that what they propose is NOT ANYTHING LIKE ANYTHING IN HISTORIC CHRISTIANITY. Hyperpreterism is a complete departure from Christianity & your leaders know this so they feel the need to constantly go into damage control & defensive mode when it is pointed out.

The discussion between the hyperpreterists turned to some specific comments that I made wherein they thought they saw a contradiction. Those comments were first sent to me via email by “the pup hyperpreterist” Mike Bennett wherein I told him he was going to have to have “big-dog” Sam Frost bail him out of his unbiblical logic — and sure enough Sam tried. Here are the comments of mine that they quoted:

Did you spot their issue? They think it is contradictory for me to claim that they are non-Christian & yet leave it up to God to decide if they are going to hell. They think it is not possible for me to compare them to Judiazers & then also say it is not for me to determine if they are going to hell. How did Sam respond?

So, let me get this straight…..we are Judaizers…and not “brothers” but he cannot say we are going to hell….hmmmmm. He never mentions creeds, but he does talk about “2,ooo years”…..hmmmm…what a stupid idiot. — (Sam Frost upset that he is a NON-Christian)

There you have it folks, the esteemed supposed scholar of the hyperpreterist movement waxes elegant by calling his detractors “stupid idiot.” What’s next, meet them on the playground after school or else???

Ok, enough fun — let’s break this down biblically.

IS IT A CONTRADICTION TO CLAIM THE JUDIAZERS WEREN’T BROTHERS BUT YET LETTING GOD DECIDE THEIR FATE?

Actually the question is even more loaded than “Dr. Sam” knows. The Bible actually DOES call the Judiazers, “brethren” at one point.

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” — Acts 15:5

Here we see the Judaizers portrayed as “believers”. Verse 24 is from the Jerusalem Council, telling the Gentiles Christians that the Judaizer’s teaching is incorrect, yet notice the position of the Judaizers — they were considered to be WITH the Christians, part of them, a “sect of believers” in Christ.

Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— Acts 15:24

My point is, early on the Judaizers were considered to be part of the Christians…just as hyperpreterists think they are but after a while it was apparent that the Judaizers “went out from” the Christians & starting teaching things that WEREN’T historically Christian — just like the hyperpreterists. So I ask, at what point did the Judaizers STOP BEING Christians???

Let’s move on to see how the Judaizers were treated later.

And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! — Gal 5:11-12

What in the world??? Paul you are contradicting. I mean, back in Acts 15 the Judaizers were a “sect of believers” in Christ & now you wish they would be cut off??? You big contradicting meanie, you Paul. How dare you talk this way of people who claim they “believe”.

See it now folks? It is perfectly BIBLICALLY CONSISTENT for us to say hyperpreterists are NON-Christian, “agitators” trouble-makers, teaching things NOT COMMANDED by Christ & His hand-picked apostles, YET letting God decide if they actually go to hell. Perhaps, like I suspect of most hyperpreterist followers — these guys are just being duped for a time by wanna-be has-beens like Sam Frost & Don Preston — but that at some point the followers will wise up & see that these guys have been taking them for a ride… for a “journey” that is increasing NOT ANYTHING LIKE CHRISTIANITY.

I know right now some of these followers really hate my guts — but hey, it is not about me, it is about contending for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (not some 1971 revision started by some reclusive ex-”church of Christ” minister). The truth, even though spoken by one little insignificant troll of a man, is like an army of a 1000…even some hyperpreteists see this & will do all they can to silence that voice.