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

Over at PD, there is a troll named Willy. He says the most outrageous unsupported things without a peep from his comrades (for the most part, though Sharon has corrected him several times). Take this little gem:

Wonder why Phil isn’t a member here.Then he could dazzle us with his great theological mind.Oh i know..Dee Dee and Rod must have forbidden him to join.I’m sure they don’t want his lack of knowledge to be exposed like theirs are.

Waaah! They won’t come over to my sty and play! Willy you are so ignorant it hurts, and you claim everyone who disagrees with you must be. Yet, when I am asked whether hyperpreterists are ignorant, I say no. Do you really think that Phil is beholden to Roderick or myself? Minna and Sharon, why do you not call Willy on these totally outlandish statements? I don’t expect much of Willy the Fail Whale, but I do expect more of you two.

We had this guy on TheologyWeb once named Richbee. I agreed with most of his theology. But he was so outlandish and far-flung with his rants that a time comes when one just has distance oneself from that kind of… oddity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Roderick wrote:

“…many hyperpreterists came directly out of dispensationalism into hyperpreterism & thus they know nothing of Christian history or historic theology.”

Mike Sullivan responds:

This is a deceptive statement and a comment. Therefore my guess is that it must have been made by Roderick since that is all he is ever capable of producing - along with gossip, slander, and provoking Christians. Unfortunately for Roderick and that group, they know nothing of exegesis.

Mike

O Rly? Did you think that way Mike when he was a hyperpreterist or is it just people who disagree with you that are idiots? As par of “that group” you have LIED against me. Disagreeing with my exegesis is not the same as your slanderous LIE that I know nothing of exegesis. I have written a nearly 150 exegetical commentary that has received commendations from reputable men. Since I don’t deal in that commentary much with anything touching hyperpreterism, I suspect you would agree with 90% of it. Liar. Slanderer. Go pull the beam out of your own eye before obsessing on Roderick and “that group.”

David, you know this is a lie both about me and Roderick. You worked with Roderick in the past. Are you going to let Mike get by with that slander against your friends?

Mike quoted WorldWithoutEnd as saying:

Someone can step from Postmil into Preterism but never from dispensationalism into preterism for to me, in my most honest understanding, it would seem impossible.

Well WWE, think it impossible no more. I came flat out of dispensationalism into hyperpreterism. I did go via the route of rejecting premill first with futurism close on the hills in second, but the amount of time was so quick as to be meaningless. I know of others. It happens when hyperpreterists infiltrate more sensationalistic dispensational churches such as the Vineyard or Calvary Chapel (out west particularly).

Even though I have some friends who also use e-mail disclaimer language, I am on record as saying I think it is silly, and if the Iceman wants to sueth me over an email; I say, send over the process server.

Anyways, is it just me or does it seem really silly and pretentious to post on PUBLIC YAHOO GROUP THAT IS VIEWABLE TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC a message which ends with the following:

This email remains the sole property of its creator, [name omitted to protect the guilty from terminal embarassment], c 2009, and is meant only for the recipient. It is not to be transmitted to any other person(s) for any reason without the expressed written consent of [name omitted to protect the guilty from terminal embarassment]. As unpublished material, it is also not to be reproduced privately or publicly for the viewing of others via any electronic or print format. Any reproduction of this email, in its entirety, or in part, will be considered a criminal act under Federal Copyright laws, which reserves all rights of distribution and publication to the creator and copyright holder, [name omitted to protect the guilty from terminal embarassment].

Dude, it isn’t unpublished material. You published it. Doh!

Oh and as far as the comment “at least its a step in the right direction,” you should know better. You know full well that the statement you were rah-rahing was inaccurate as far as it comes to Sproul, and I am telling you now, as I told the original author privately, that it is inaccurate as far as it comes to Mathison. Don’t “M.A.R.”;s fact-check anything?

Today I removed a post by one Mr. Bowers who thought it was completely appropriate to use my bandwidth and time to proselytize his heresy. He sends this e-mail (they can’t help themselves):

Dee Dee:

I’m glad you finally admitted your site is exclusively for people to mock full preterism, I will leave you to your folly!

Hmm Jerry, it isn’t as if “100% Hyperpreterist Free” isn’t emblazoned in the masthead. That is some masterful detective work on your part. The fact that I allow even some hyperpreterists to post is unusual. The ones I do are because I feel they are genuinely seeking, and their hearts are open.

You guys had the run of the Internet for years. Too bad I changed all that. Nope, you can’t lay that garbage in front of my door, run over to one of the myriad of hyperpreterist sites and do this. This place is a safe haven from hyperpreterism; a haven that didn’t exist when I was exposed to the foul heresy.

I also don’t allow Mormons, JWs, Branch Davidians, and any other cult to proselytize here as well. Any opposition to you guys is automatically “mocking” or “crazy” or “stupid.” Then why do you even care? If it is that obvious, everyone will see it. Or is it because there are people that come out of hyperpreterism, some of them in some small part due to my work, that bothers you?

And as Lem pointed out, your post was even “good” hyperpreterist apologetics. It was vacuous. Arguably I did you a favour by removing it.

Have fun with your heretical buddies. I look forward to your post at SGP where you criticize them for having their own “walled garden” where there are even unmentionables. I am not scared to name you or any of them. I am just not going to pay for your twaddle.

Samuel, without admitting (or ever apologizing for defending that email), that I did not misrepresent David Green uncritically accepts David’s latest attempt to soften the blow for his fellow hyperpreterists and uncritically re-posts the following:

Yes, Keith Mathison teaches that “the resurrection” discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus was possibly fulfilled a few years later in AD 70. That’s quite an admission.

David gave page numbers on which he believed Keith made that statement. David was mistaken. Samuel is trying to do everything he can to get out of the morass of lies he has sunk into.

Yes that would be “quite an admission.” Unfortunately for Samuel, Keith Mathison never said that. Whoops. It is David’s admission, which he openly conceded he made and Samuel has yet ANOTHER thing to come clean about, that was “quite an admission.” What about that Samuel? Why not even a little peep? You are the expert right?

Samuel never even bothered to go back and interact with my prior statements either. Neither did David, but David isn’t the one who is going around lying about me.

Samuel why didn’t you bother to even go read the book you should know like the back of your hand by now and check to see if Keith ever said that?

Who is misrepresenting who now? Ready to admit that I didn’t misrepresent David Green?

Now the rest of David’s article is full of weak points, and David didn’t exactly represent what Keith’s meaning was entirely accurately. But that is likely a misunderstanding.

Here is from Mr. Mathison himself:

There’s nowhere in these pages where I say or imply that “the resurrection discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus was possibly fulfilled a few years later in AD 70.” I don’t even identify what THE resurrection discussed by Hymenaeus and Philetus is, because I’m not 100% sure. All I mentioned was a few possibilities for what those two men might have been talking about. I don’t believe ANY of them could possibly have been fulfilled a few years later in A.D. 70, and I didn’t suggest or imply anything otherwise in those pages of WSTTB.

I know what Samuel/David is going to come back with. I suggest they think twice and read the pages again. Don’t say I didn’t warn you if you do come back with it, and I grab the coyote’s Acme anvil and take it to your statements.

I could name-drop like Samuel and say “my good buddy, old pal, Keith Mathison,” but that would not be true. Keith and I have corresponded for a few years over email, and I would like one day to call him my close friend. I call anyone my friend that I have had extended very friendly communications with. Keith is the kind of guy who will correspond very easily with people who are genuine, not looking for a fight, and don’t waste his time. It isn’t that I am so special.

Keith had given me additional information to explain how David misinterpreted the conclusion of his words. I had written back to Keith that he and I probably disagree on this issue. He wrote back and said that we probably did not and explained further. I do not think Keith and I disagree much, if at all, and I am going to run by him my rebuttal of David before publishing it. I haven’t even written it yet. I keep waiting for “Pastor” Frost to apologize for defending a completely inappropriate email without qualification.

The audience should now that Samuel and many of the hyperpreterists who use the name “Pastor” and the like were “ordained” by another hyperpreterist, not any recognized Church body. I believe that is another disingenuous way that they try to give their words credibility. When a naive Christian sees propaganda signed off upon by all these “ministers” and “pastors,” they are led to believe that this is a legitimate view within historic Christianity, or at least possibly so.

PS: Samuel didn’t link back to David’s original piece either. Guess he doesn’t want to lose that flock of his. David, true to his honesty, posted this at SGP:

Comment by David Green 12 hours ago
For the futurist, it’s not a hypothetical argument. To be faithful to the Scriptures within their erroneous framework, futurists must condemn preterists as damnable heretics, in accordance with 2 Tim. 2:17-18.

And that is ALL I have ever said. Samuel’s pride won’t let him admit in front of his crew that he bumbled this one.

Oh Samuel, and about that email…… how about it “Pastor”?

I am going to have a really good time showing what a manipulative snake Samuel is. But now he has indulged into at least semi-plagiarism (perhaps inadvertently) and unethical quoting, definitely intentionally.

Check out his comment here:

http://preterism.ning.com/profiles/blogs/dee-dee-warren-on-iron?id=1632544%3ABlogPost%3A43448&page=1#comments

(see bottom of page one of comments)

Which is directly lifted from someone else’s writing for which, as usual, he doesn’t source. He gives a hint at the top that it isn’t his work and by the use of quote marks which isn’t obvious unless you already knew that. He could have been quoting some of his own work. Perhaps he meant for the “this” to be a hyperlink. It isn’t.

The simple fact is that Samuel has lied about what I believe, but he has done something far more insidious than that. I will let him stew in what that could possibly be. But it is a doozy and will be the subject of another post. Samuel is already in panic damage-control mode. If he really understood molinism, he wouldn’t have to copy and paste what someone else wrote. But it was full of nice fancy words to make him look smarter than he is. That was my first clue that he didn’t write it.

SGP members, listen closely, and you will hear the hiss. Samuel is speaking lies, manipulations, and half-truths. Of course, you guys believe the father of lies has been destroyed, so you can’t even say the devil made him do it.

Samuel is looking more and more like a cult leader every day.

Everyone you have tried this trick with outside your little circle has seen it for the lie it is. Please continue; you are helping me than you could ever imagine. Thank you.

Oh whatever will you do if I ever became a Calvinist? Would you have to resort back to defending emails picturing me as the Whore of Babylon or emailing me calling me “old gal” or a “lesbian housewife”?

Here’s a hint Samuel, you tried this same stunt, more precisely Michael Bennett did, of which I am pretty sure you are aware, in 2006, and were corrected then. What do you call someone who repeats a falsehood after being corrected? A liar. Pathetic and totally unbecoming a “leader.”

BTW Samuel, I don’t consider you an expert either though I know you fancy yourself one. If you are an expert, so am I. But you aren’t; so you can take that for what its worth in your boastful parade.

To SGP members as I am convinced that Samuel is thoroughly corrupt, ask yourself why he didn’t quote this part:

One possible scenario is that God first resolves absolutely that Peter should freely elicit A in C and then, as it were, consults his middle knowledge to see just which particular graces would, if bestowed on Peter in C, obtain his free consent and thus issue in A. It follows that, given his antecedent resolution, God would have conferred some grace other than G if he had known by his middle knowledge that G would turn out to be “merely sufficient” with respect to A, i.e., that Peter would not freely consent to G in C. So G is rendered efficacious not only by Peter’s free consent but also, and indeed more principally, by God’s antecedent predetermination to confer a “congruous” grace that will guarantee Peter’s acting well in C. This model, which brings Molinism more into line with Bañezianism, is known as Congruism and was worked out in detail by Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suárez. In 1613 Congruism was mandated for all Jesuit theologians by the Father General Claude Aquiviva.

Source which Samuel neglected to note, was it because he didn’t want you to see this part? Could it be because you would then see that his snarky “take your pick” comment on the end was deceptive since he didn’t even give you the opportunity to know the full menu from which to pick, at least according to that article?

The discerning reader will also note that Samuel didn’t quote a thing from William Lane Craig. A honest person will quote from the most recent material available. It would be like disproving postmillennialism by quoting from early postmillennialists which do not believe the same thing as modern postmillenialists.

The term “molinism” happens to be the widely accepted label. It is not an indication that one accepts everything that the popularizer Molina proposed. If so, does Samuel accept everything Luther said? Even in his diatribes against the Jews? Even in his approval of polygamy? Which SGP members, you should know that Samuel doesn’t believe is sinful, but simply less than God’s ideal. The logical conclusion of this would be that if Samuel took a second wife, it might be illegal, it might be less than God’s ideal, but it wouldn’t be a sin. I think he has a whole lot more to worry about other than his ignorance on Molinism which he pretended to cure by one of his typical argumentum ad googleum tactics. This type of selective quotation is highly unethical.

Just in case Samuel tries to add back in the link and claim that I just didn’t see it, I went and looked at the source code for the page:

Dee Dee claims that I don’t know what Molinism is. I wrote that God does not know contingent events. Well, that’s an abbreviation of this:

No html link tags. Don’t even try it Samuel. I have a screenshot of the source code.

There is a tactic by hyperpreterists that is as old as the hills and just as tiresome as climbing. Hyperpreterists aren’t the only ones who do this; it seems to be common amongst those who have a monomania about any particular topic. What is this tactic?

They misrepresent their disagreement with an answer as someone not answering someone.

There is a huge difference. For example, an accusation was made that “Daniel 12 remains unanswered.”

Is that true? No. Besides the work that has been done by others, as all hyperpreterists who make this claim are aware of, I have written on the subject. I provided the proof that I had that last time this claim was made last year. Gary DeMar spoke on it during a show that most of the vocal internet hyperpreterists were at. Philip Mauro (who held a preterist interpretation of Daniel) answered it. Chori Seraiah answered it.

I don’t keep a ledger on who wrote on what. Only one example is needed to falsify this claim. It doesn’t stop them from repeating it.

So let me translate what they mean when they make that claim:

No one has given an answer I agree with, so they have not answered. Also they won’t devote their whole life to answering me/us in our monomaniacal zeal. Wah.

It would be like me claiming that hyperpreterists have never answered the question of the resurrection. They have produced reams of information on the subject. I don’t agree with explanations; but that is not the same as falsely claiming that they did not ever give an answer.

As Dr. Kenneth Gentry said:

I have seen immature Christians swallow the system whole and then become intoxicated with a cultish arrogance. Many pastors have called me for counsel on how to deal with combative hyper-preterist zealots who have entered their congregations and disrupted the unity and peace of the church. I have seen ministerial friends forsake their orthodox preterism for fear of being confused with the extremists. I have read scathing reviews of hyper-preterist materials that heap scorn on any preterist approach. I have witnessed hyper-preterists causing problems because of their obsessive single-mindedness… I have endured an overwhelming flood of email challenges from hyper-preterists because of my disagreement with their views. I have weathered logically confused, excruciatingly redundant, wearisome responses to my writings from hyper-preterist theolouges. [continuing in footnote] One five-page pamphlet I wrote was entitled, A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism, (1995). It has generated scores of rebuttals, one of which runs around 160 pages. I once facetiously warned Andrew Sandlin, editor of The Chalcedon Report, to be cautious in responding to the hyper-preterists because they are unemployed and have Internet access. After he published his article, he wrote to me within a week and said he had discovered what I meant. [end of footnote] Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions - or die the death of a thousand emails.

He wrote that at a time when unsolicited, insistent emails from hypreterists were common. Now it is die the death of a thousand blog posts claiming “Yeah but…”

The hyperpreterists also falsely claim that in general those who oppose them have not answered them Biblically.

This page is not an index of cooking recipes for sweet potato pie.

Next time you hear anyone making that claim, realize that it means that something was not beat to death to the other’s satisfaction. It DOES NOT mean that it hasn’t been responded to. While some orthodox persons use this tactic; every cult does. It is a sign of a cultic movement.

I received an interesting piece of hatemail today. First, I am awash in wonderment at the type of person that would take the time to fire off a nasty missive for no particular purpose except to be a bluejay. But second, what the bluejay intended for evil, God meant for good. God has a tremendous sense of humour. The title of the hatemail was “laughing harder then I thought,” which then proceeded to claim that I had the understanding of a 7th grader which was pretty delicious in light of the grammar of its author. I would not describe the author’s grammar as 7th grade-level. That would be insulting to 7th-graders.

Back to the title. All kinds of humourous interpretations spring to mind. Was the author laughing harder THEN he thought? Then he thought what? That he should send some hatemail? That he forgot to wear deodorant? What, in the name of Steve, did he think?

It only got better from there. The first sentence proclaimed, “You absolute lack of bible interpretation…” How am I an absolute lack of Bible interpretation? I don’t understand how I could be such a thing. I could possess such a thing, but I could not BE such a thing. It makes no sense. This makes sense: you bluejay. This doesn’t make sense: you lack of bible interpretation. I am puzzled.

Next, the bluejay squawked, “To only read through the entire text instead the passages you confound, would clearly show your ineptness at what you do.”

If you say so, though I confess that the phrase “instead the passages” contained in a sentence decrying my ineptitude is entertaining. The comma recklessly thrown about also made me laugh more than I thought I would.

The last sentence is by far the best.

“But those such as yourself, perhaps the women warrior in your website, and that improper ’sucky’ are exactly the kinds that swallow your verbal and written dysentery.”

I just love Pharisees. Not. Mr. Bluejay’s feathers all are in a ruffle by the use of “sucky” which I find to have moved into common non-vulgar usage, yet finds it completely appropriate to claim that I have excrement coming out of the wrong end of my body. Ah, but he said it without using any naughty words so that makes it all better. One mustn’t have gnats with their camels.

Further, I am confounded by the phrase “women warrior.” Are there multiple women making up one warrior? And they are IN my website? Well don’t just stand there, get the chimeric beast out! Also that sentence seems to imply that “sucky” is a kind of something that would swallow my excrement. How can an adjective do such a thing? Is “sucky” a creature that has escaped my attention? Is it the offspring of the monstrous women warrior conglomeration?

I have so much to learn. Fortunately one thing I do not need to learn is how to block emails. I bet he uses Windows and Internet Destroyer. Sigh.

In order to have the appropriate full background for this post, it is necessary to read Roderick’s prior post on this matter. Since Roderick’s posting, the lies have only spread and the web grown more tangled.

Brief Background History

For a very thorough background of the history, it is vitally necessary that you listen to Episode 20 of The Preterist Podcast. The short summary is that for years, certain hyperpreterists had been harassing me in a completely inappropriately personal fashion. I don’t claim innocence of not being more antagonistic at times than I should be, but never have I crossed a line into someone’s life that is borderline criminal or simply creepily personal. Over the years I have matured to the point where most of the time I am precisely as antagonistic as I intend to be. However, in the past, and at some times in the present, my tongue is sharper than it should be. That is fully admitted.

Even hyperpreterists not involved with the harassment are for the most part very aware of it. The three men in question definitely are. The actions that follow MUST be taken in the context of this knowledge. The current incident simply isn’t a one-off indiscretion which makes the subsequent follow-up even more egregious.

So who are the three blind men? Michael Bennett, Jason Bradfield (KingNeb as I usually know him by), and Samuel Frost. I include Samuel last and will discuss him last because out of the three, I don’t believe he acts with genuine malice but is hindered with an inability at this point in time to confront sin in his companions and a habit of careless boasts.

After years of living in the shadow of past harassment and threats to get my picture and post it without my consent, I made a decision that things in my life are going to be under my control (when it comes to human affairs, obviously God may have His own plans), and I will not be pushed around by misogynistic bullies. So I had a game plan of overcoming that mind-manipulation of people like that as well as finally fulfilling other goals I had including shedding the bondage of some fears, such as a fear of flying. One thing I decided is that it was inevitable that a hyperpreterist goon would get my picture some day, and I simply would not give them that satisfaction. So at time of victory (I actually got on a plane and flew to California to attend Macworld), I posted my one picture. Within mere hours of my posting the picture, Michael Bennett sends around an email to some of his SGP friends and Roderick Edwards who most definitely is NOT his friend (that point is important) with a side by side layout of my picture and a depiction of the Whore of Babylon. Nice eh? When called on the utter inappropriateness of this action, damage control went into high gear at SGP.

A man named Phil posted an open letter at SGP for Michael to repent or be rebuked by his peers. That post was deleted, and Phil was mocked and maligned. Soon thereafter, a damage control email was sent to SGP members by Jason Bradfield. Roderick dealt with that email in the post linked above, but since that time, Jason has attempted to engage in further damage control by deciding to post an alleged answer to Roderick’s concerns publicly for SGP mockery comments. Not one SGP member dealt thoughtfully with the issues but engaged in a sickening mockfest. How can one blame them when the leaders are corrupt? Reality check people: sometimes people you agree with are wrong, and people you don’t like are right.

Since Jason decided that he was going to continue to lie like a rug, I am also going to deal with his bold-faced dishonesty. After that, I will deal with Michael’s that followed afterwards. Last of all, I will deal with Samuel as he decided that he was going to misrepresent our private conversation publicly. I had gone back and forth previously as to whether I was going to publicly expose something that I had already confronted Samuel with in private, after which he broke off contact. His recent unbecoming boastful behaviour solidified my decision.

Jason Bradfield

I will now deal with pertinent sections of Jason’s lie-mail. For the full text please see Roderick’s post.

A message to all members of Sovereign Grace Preterism

In keeping with policy, i did not want to post this on the site, but i do feel a need to clarify something, especially considering the fact that many of you have contacted me asking what is going on about “the email.”

Dee posted a pic of herself on her site. She’s sitting on a sign with hair weaves and a leopard skin outfit (shoes and coat).

Notice the complete lack of context omitted by Jason and mischaracterization. First, I am not simply sitting on a sign. I am sitting on a landmark that is famous to Apple fans; the 1 Infinite Loop sign at the Apple campus in Cupertino California. Why is that important? It is a fun vacation tourist picture. Second, what kind of image does “leopard skin outfit” bring to your mind?

When Mike Bennett saw it, it reminded him of a drawing he had seen elsewhere of a woman sitting on a beast, crazy outfit, etc.

Yeah signs look like beasts to me. Not. And yeah, there are drawings everywhere of a woman on sitting on a beast that contain no specific context. Not. How stupid does Jason think SGP members are?

You might be thinking, well okay, so he spun it, but where’s the lie? Oh it’s coming. In spades.

Mike took the two pics, posted them side by side with no comments, and emailed it. (emphasis mine)

LIAR. Here is Michael’s email as best as it can be reproduced here.

On Sun, 1/11/09, Michael Bennett wrote:
From: Michael Bennett
Subject: Preterist Idealism - found to be right !!!
To: “Michael Bennett”
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 9:34 AM

Sorry - couldn’t resist =)

Seems to me and any other honest person that “Preterist Idealism - found to be right!!!” and “Sorry - couldn’t resist =)” are in fact commentary. In fact, I ask SGP members to read the subject line and see if they can honestly say that Michael really had no clue what the picture was and didn’t mean it to be inferred that he was comparing me to the Whore of Babylon. What, pray tell, does the subject line comment mean? What does “preterist idealism” (which finds ongoing fulfillment throughout history) have to do with simply comparing pictures of “two crazy ladies?”

Also SGP members that wish to have to deal with the truth, please note the writing on the bottom of the image:

Revelation Illustrated, and Michael didn’t have any idea of what the image was and had no intention of making a comparison between me and the Whore of Babylon. I mean really, “preterist idealism - found to be right!!” goes perfectly with these images of women on multi-headed beasts that are everywhere that have nothing to do with the Bible, right? Be honest with yourselves people.

Now, when i first saw the email, i chuckled a little and deleted it. That was that. I did not know exactly what Mike intended for me to get out of it, other than a comparison of two crazy ladies. That’s where my “clarkianism” kicks in. What all can i infer from two pics? I would argue not much of anything.

Well Jason then you are a blockhead. Michael told you precisely what he intended for it to mean in the subject line: preterist idealism - found to be right!!!! And you suck at being a clarksian. I mean really, you can infer nothing from the following:

• Preterist Idealism - Found to be Right!!!
• A image which bears credit to Revelation Illustrated
• A multi-headed beast

Do you really expect anyone to believe you are that stupid? You are either stupid or a liar. I can’t wait to hear your spin on what you have ignored so far. Precisely why did Michael send it to Roderick? Tick, tock.

Michael Bennett

Now Michael in an email to Phil was at least a tiny bit more honest than Jason.

B) The pic was a joke because of the way Dee Dee was posed and dressed. It read in the title and had NO OTHER COMMENT. “Todd Dennis was right Preterist Idealism is true - re-fulfillment” then it said sorry couldn’t resist. The WHOLE point was she was seated in a similar way and she had on a leopard skin outfit and a hair weave and was seated in a similar way.

He admits that he DID know that in some way the pic was a “refulfillment” of which the image portrayed but tries to claim that it was because:

1. I was seated in a similar way

LIAR. Go look at the two pictures. Was the Whore riding sidesaddle (it is difficult to tell, she may be)? Am I holding my arm up high and showing off my bare leg? Basically anyone sitting on anything could resemble that “pose.”

2. I had on a leopard skin outfit and a hair weave

LIAR. Again, I did not have on a leopard skin outfit. The Whore is not wearing any animal print but flowing robes of purple. But then again whores wear leopard print outfits, so it doesn’t matter, right? Does the Whore have a hair weave? I sure hope Michael doesn’t try that crap with a black chick implying that there is something whorish or crazy about having woven braids.

And the title of the email to Phil was along the lines of “Rebuke - LOL!” Is that anyway to respond to a rebuke even if you think you are right? Can any Christian imagine writing that to their pastor who had a concern?

Now Michael is in the Pacific Time Zone, and Roderick is in the Eastern DST time zone. I don’t know if the time stamp on Michael’s email is his time or Roderick’s time. If it is Roderick’s time, that means Michael sent it out at 6:34 am. I made my post at about 3 am. That means at most eight hours passed between my post, and Michael’s “couldn’t resist.” I doubt he pulls all-nighters like I do on the weekends, so this seems like the first thing he did that morning. Nice. But it gets better folks because you can’t see this in isolation. Back when all of my personal information was being posted, Michael specifically threatened to post my picture being well aware that I absolutely did not want any picture to be posted.

In response to that Michael emailed Roderick the following:

I have no idea what she is talking about. She must have me mixed up with someone (as usual - she seems to do this alot). Or she is flat out lying. Either way - You have been duped Roderick.

LIAR. First, where as usual do I have people mixed up? Oh, you made that up. Gotcha. Recently I had TheProphetWhiteBoy mixed up with Brad_Religion. That hardly qualifies as “as usual” and “alot.” And what did I do when I discovered the error? Something Michael would NEVER do. I publicly apologized to TheProphetWhiteBoy.

Now Michael is banking on the fact that I no longer had the email. In fact I thought I did not. Back around that time I suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure and lost a great deal of data. But as it turns out, I DO have at least a fragment of that conversation which was saved in my gmail account. It didn’t occur to me until a few days ago that I had a different email address back then which I haven’t used in years. It was preteristlist@gmail.com as that was previously the name of my site which I had to change due to the harassment. So I went to that account and lookee at what I found.

Let me give the history of this exchange. Michael consistently spams people with garishly coloured proof-texting emails. He did that with me. I told him in no uncertain terms to stop writing me. Now look below, I am leaving in the parts that are pertinent to this post. I have deleted his rambling proof-texting. As you can see, this copy is a forward to my theologyweb account because that is what I did with my old emails when I abandoned that account. However all those theologyweb emails were lost with my hard drive. But this is enough to prove Michael a liar. I had previously thought a fragment was missing; in re-reading the exchange there is nothing missing; his threat is right there. You have to read from bottom to top for it to make sense. Gmail is like that. (emphasis mine)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Michael Bennett
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Dee Dee Come Out And Play
To: Dee Dee Warren

“Read my lips again, don’t write me”

Is that literal or spiritual?

By the way - in James 5 you know wth all the time texts…doesn’t it say that the harvest would occur…with all the time texts - LOL

If you write me back I am gonna write back Dee Dee.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:

Dude, they have meds for uncontrollable compulsions. You really should try them. They might work wonders for your inability to stop emailing someone who told you multiple times not to, and said so right in the beginning.

Read my lips again, don’t write me. You were told by my instrucctions
not to write me in the first place.

Dee Dee Warren wrote:

That’s nice - have fun - maybe in the meantime you can figure out how not to write someone who asked not to - I pity the girl who turns you down for a date

Make sure you show my good side, it is the one that does not have the warts and the goiter

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:53:01 -0800 (PST), Michael Bennett wrote:

Don’t worry - your ugly picture and non answers will be onmy website too. LOL

Who’s lying now Michael? Let me take a guess. YOU. You have been a harassing thug from the beginning, and you haven’t stopped. Turns out that I didn’t “as usual” mix you up with someone else which I allegedly do “alot.” That is what is called a mouth-shutter Michael.

It is irrelevant if Michael didn’t intend to directly call me an actual whore. You don’t take a picture of a man’s wife and compare her to a picture of the Whore of Babylon, as if saying I looked like her (a Whore) is any better. Okay, so Michael is not saying I AM a whore, I just look like one. Yeah, that’s much better. And Jason lied about there being no overt inference to be drawn from the email. Michael admitted he knew it was the Whore of Babylon. Didn’t Michael tell Jason this in that little phone chat that Jason says they had?

Samuel Frost

Samuel is a world-class dancer. He directly contradicted Jason by stating:

The coward who shared a private e-mail to SGP members is also a fraud..

Samuel, please do pay attention. Jason said:

Do they really think i’m that stupid to think that a message to all members would remain “private”? There’s nothing “private” about it.

Exaggerating once again Samuel? That is a habit with you. Samuel also said (I deleted the name of a person who does not wish to be involved in this nonsense):

I contacted Dee Dee the other day through the wishes of *****. That even got blown out of proportion (as usual). After that, I doubt I will ever do that again…it was a good faith effort to no avail (as I told ***** it would be).

LIAR. You wrote me half-baked assuming that I said something I didn’t. The details are outlined here.

Even though you were completely wrong in your assumptions, here is my email to you which you refused to acknowledge. So any honest SGP members, read this email and see if it rings true to Samuel’s claim.

Samuel, upon further consideration, I wrote directly to **** since you stated in your email that he was waiting for a response [DDW addition for this post: that wasn't true, no one else was waiting for a response]. I gave him a response, and if you had read my words carefully, you would see it had absolutely nothing to do with what you asked. If you wish to communicate with me, then you will remove the threat “these emails are being saved” and the ridiculous disclaimer at the bottom of your emails. I don’t communicate with people who do that for no good reason, and their yes isn’t yes, and their no isn’t no. If you cannot do that, please do not write me again. I don’t deal with people on those terms. You have your terms for email, I have mine. And since this is my email, and I place no such disclaimer on it, I am cc’ing **** on it. I do wish to let you know you jumped to conclusions. My reference had nothing to do with my previous mistaken belief that you taught a course on Hebrew. I have explicitly stated that belief multiple times publicly, yet you never once corrected me personally. Now, it is possible that you missed those statements. I miss statements made by others all the time. If you did see them, and did not correct me, there is an example of where you let me continue in that mistaken belief. However, as I told *****, I don’t save links or conversation trails. If you say you never made such a claim, and since I don’t have any links other than my word (which ****** can accept or reject), I recognize that misunderstandings easily happen, and I could have misunderstood you. If you claim you never made any such explicit statements, I am willing to take you at your word. I already publicly posted last week that my prior impression was wrong. However, that isn’t what I was referring to at Phil’s blog. You assumed I was. If you had read my words carefully (again, see how misunderstandings happen?), it would have been obvious that is not what I was referring to.

Now if you wish an apology for a misunderstanding on my part, I can easily give you one. However, if there was a misunderstanding (and I am going to take as true that there was since I am willing to take you at your word), then I absolutely apologize for any part I had in the misunderstanding, be it failure to read carefully, or reading more into something more than was intended. My misunderstanding however was also in completely good faith. I had absolutely believed you had made such statements, so I cannot apologize for my prior belief as I held it in good faith. But since you have said you have never done so, obviously I can apologize for any misunderstanding, and I must have misread or misinterpreted something inadvertently. I have sent to ***** some statements you made in which you give mixed signals. I am not responsible for your behaviour, but I do, and I do this with all due respect, ask you to consider if the way you word things easily leads others to that belief along with the fact that you name-drop ******* regularly, in a way I believe is intended to cloak your heretical beliefs with an indicia of credibility. That has been well-documented and sourced. In fact, I would encourage you to make a public explicit post about that so that any misunderstandings that other people may have are completely clear. I would reproduce such a statement on my blog so that my readers, who may not have seen my prior comment that my understanding was wrong, will also be clear on this point.

Now, I consider all emails to be private to the parties they are written to unless it is necessary to disclose them to prove a lie or some other grievous sin. I don’t need a disclaimer for that. I hold everyone to that standard. If you want to have a discussion on a particular point, I suggest you write me with less aggression. Another hyperpreterist recently wanted to clarify something, and we had many genial emails as there was misunderstanding on both parts. The Internet is a breeding ground for good-faith misunderstandings. No one threatened each other with “I am saving these emails” or legal mumbo jumbo. It is unnecessary.

Also, please do not write me back if you are not willing to have ***** see your responses. Whenever there is a conflict with a male, and issues of propriety come up, I nearly always ask another male to observe the conversation. I believe this email to you was polite, apologized where appropriate, and explained that situation. But then again, that is not what I was referring to on Phil’s blog whatsoever. I rather think you should apologize yourself for jumping to the conclusion that it was and the abrasive tone of your email which was supposedly to seek an apology. That is not the way to go about it and most often will just antagonize the person that you wish an apology from.

Now as far as what I am referring to in Phil’s blog, if you can write me in accordance with the above, I will tell you. I really don’t think you want to go there however.

Does that sound like it was to no avail? I told Samuel his conclusions were wrong, told him that I would take him at his word, and apologized for any wrong conclusions I might have drawn on statements he made. Samuel is lying.

So Samuel and I finally go to where he asked me what I was then referring to. I wrote Samuel and said:

I don’t have the email with me here, but I can give you the gist of it. Did you not represent to Jason Bradfield that ***** was basically “having none of it” when it came to his discussions with me? I think I may even have given an exact quote. That is an absolutely false depiction of the state of communications between myself and *****, of which you have no knowledge as there were done in the strictest of privacy, and as evidenced by our recent call.

Here is the pertinent portion of Samuel’s damage control response:

As per Jason, not really sure what you mean. **** does not want to get into the middle of our spouts, true. That may have been what I meant.

Well dear reader, the person who didn’t want to be in the middle only said that THAT DAY. That was not the case at the time of the email to Jason in which Samuel lied. After he knew I had him caught dead, he said to not write back. Unlike Michael, I don’t write people who ask me not to.

So here is the pertinent portion of Samuel’s lying email to Jason:

“By the way, DDW is e-mailing ******* …he ain’t budging….”.

Now does that mesh with the excuse that Samuel gave above? That statement is a complete misrepresentation of my discussions with that other party. That kind of careless boasting is what gets Samuel in trouble.

Now spineless Samuel won’t rebuke the blatant lies of Michael and Jason yet has the nerve to call a person who shared an email that was not intended (per Jason) to be private in order to expose a lie - soul-less.

Wow. Samuel sure talks tough when it isn’t his own. Sorry Samuel, learn basic ethics. One cannot hide behind “privacy” to perpetrate a lie. One cannot hide behind a legal email disclaimer to perpetrate a lie. A person aware of such things is under an ethical obligation to share it. You all got caught, and you don’t like it.

Cultish Mentality

From the comments on Jason’s self-serving post:

I stand by Jason’s decision as site admin. I also agree with David, complete ignorance is the only solution.

Only if you don’t care to examine the evidence.

Preterism is an inseparable part of the Gospel and its truth is marching on!

So much for it being a non-essential.

As you read the title of this article you might be thinking, “How does he know what those guys say in private?”.  Further you might ask, “Who are these SGP Admins & why are you talking about them”?

To answer the questions in reverse, let me summarize that SGP stands for “Sovereign Grace Preterism” — it is a community website which was started after a mass exodus of hyperpreterists from the premier hyperpreterist website, Planet Preterist.  The hyperpreterists, began leaving Planet Preterist after it became increasingly liberal.  Yet, this will always be the course of ANY hyperpreterist site or group, since by its very design, hyperpreterism is individualistic & “liberal” in that it liberalizes texts & concepts via rabid speculation & disconnection.

SGP is led by hyperpreterist teacher, Samuel Frost & his two main followers — Jason Bradfield & Michael Bennett.  Bradfield is known for his constant “apologetic” of Frost — any time & any place Frost is mentioned in a unflattering way, Bradfield will be there to speak on Frost’s behalf.  Whereas Bennett is known for his proof-texting & perhaps 100% agreement with everything Frost has EVER said.

Frost himself boasts of his talent & his two published books, even arrogantly claiming about one that “No one to date has answered it” yet ignoring that 2000 years of Christianity has ALREADY answered before Frost even wrote the book.

Anyhow, after becoming popularized on Planet Preterist & via speaking every year at the Planet Preterist conferences, Frost at some point kicks his benefactor to the curb.  This is evident from a recent announcement given by a group of more conservative hyperpreterists of which Frost joined to be part of a book project.  The announcement relates why Frost left Planet Preterist:

Sam announced on one of his podcasts that a “break“ was coming between him and Planet Preterist.  This break was impending, Sam said, because of all the disturbing doctrines that are promoted at Planet Preterist.  Specifically: Emergent errors, “we can’t know absolute truth,” “God does not know all things at all times,” no creeds, no systematic theology, Universalism, attacks on the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, free will, etc., etc. (source)

The irony is, nothing much changed between the time Frost joined Planet Preterist & the time Frost left — it was “promoting” all of those “disturbing doctrines” the day Frost joined up with Planet Preterist & still the day he left & even now.  No, Frost left Planet Preterist because he felt he was now big enough to strike out on his own.

Now, that you have a little back ground on what SGP is & how it was started, let us move to the first question.  How would I know what is said by the SGP Admins in private…& really why should you care?  Because, as is typical with hyperpreterists, their public & private communications are often very, very inconsistent.

For example,  Bennett recently sent an email to several people, including myself of a picture of Dee Dee Warren & a picture of a depiction of the whore of Babylon side-by-side.  Now, without ANY other explanation, what do you think such a thing was trying to convey?

Here is where the knowing what the SGP Admins say in private comes in.

I received an email sent out by Bradfield on behalf of the SGP Admins to the SGP members.  According to the email, MANY of the members of SGP had contacted Bradfield to ask him about what was going on with Bennett & the lurid email he sent out about Dee Dee. (you’ll see Bradfield’s full email to the SGP in a moment).  Well, what was ACTUALLY going on is an outside party, a man named Phil from Theology Today, got wind of Bennett’s email & publicly called for Bennett to repent AND to be admonished by Frost.  Frost REFUSED to publicly admonish Bennett for something Bennett had done publicly & as a matter of fact Bennett was indignant toward Phil’s request even at one point emailing Phil using “LOL” - lots of laughs” in the subject line in response to Phil’s request that Bennett repent.

But what did the SGP Admins tell their members in private???  See for yourself.  Below is Bradfield’s complete email on the issue. The email is nothing but DAMAGE CONTROL.  I will BOLD important points I want to address.

A message to all members of Sovereign Grace Preterism

In keeping with policy, i did not want to post this on the site, but i do feel a need to clarify something, especially considering the fact that many of you have contacted me asking what is going on about “the email.”

Dee posted a pic of herself on her site. She’s sitting on a sign with hair weaves and a leopard skin outfit (shoes and coat).

When Mike Bennett saw it, it reminded him of a drawing he had seen elsewhere of a woman sitting on a beast, crazy outfit, etc.

Mike took the two pics, posted them side by side with no comments, and emailed it .

Now, when i first saw the email, i chuckled a little and deleted it. That was that. I did not know exactly what Mike intended for me to get out of it, other than a comparison of two crazy ladies.

That’s where my “clarkianism” kicks in. What all can i infer from two pics? I would argue not much of anything.

Apparently, the pic of the woman on the beast was of the “whore of bablyon”. Ya’ll have seen these pics - Hagee, Larkin, and others draw these pics of biblical characters, etc.

Well, they took the email to mean that Mike was calling Dee a “whore”. And that is NOT what Mike meant. It can’t be inferred from the email and if one would just call Mike up and talk to him about it, as i did, you’ll know that is the case.

Now, did i think that was a smart move on Mike’s part? No, because this is exactly what happens.

Phil posted a rebuke of Mike on SGP and i deleted it for two reasons:

1. Site policy regarding Dee
2. I felt they exaggerated the whole thing

Plus, he accused the SGP crowd as a whole of “applauding” the email and most of you weren’t even aware of it.

So, that’s the story. I hope we’ll learn from this just how unsafe it is to give them ANYTHING, because Rod and Dee will exaggerate things well beyond the intended purpose. I encourage folks not to contact them in any form or fashion about anything. This is what happens.

Jason

Notice that he “feels the need to clarify” yet neither he nor Frost “felt the need” to call Bennett to repentance over this issue.  This is just more outcropping of the hyperpreterist antinomian/anti-authoritarian mindset.  They can’t “feel the need” to correct anything since they are sooooo much in error about their basic theology.  Notice once again as I already mentioned, the SGP members were obviously wondering what was going on, but Bradfield was going to spin it for them.

Next, Bradfield pretends Bennett just happened to see a picture that reminded him of Dee Dee’s picture.  No — the picture was CLEARLY a depiction of the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17-18.  If Bennett didn’t know this, it is MORE the reason he should not be teaching anyone anything about theology.

The comment about Bennett posting the pictures without comment is a outright LIE!!!!!  — Bennett wrote in the email: “Sorry - couldn’t resist =)” If there was nothing wrong with what Bennett was doing, why should he be concerned whether he could or couldn’t resist doing it???

How does Bradfield claim he understood the pictures?  First he shows us just how numbed he has become to these types of things, by saying he “chuckled a little bit & then deleted it & that was that”, no big deal I guess? — But then again, Bradfield himself goes around calling people “clowns” & “boobs” & even in this email says Bennett’s pictures were of “two crazy ladies”.  I’m sure Bradfield didn’t bat an eye when he wrote that.  But for Bradfield to claim he saw the pictures as “two crazy ladies” shows that he is either dishonest OR he also has such little theological knowledge that he didn’t initially realize the one picture was a depiction of the Whore of Babylon — again, another guy who should not be teaching anyone theology — “clarkian” or otherwise.

But then let’s see Bradfield’s logic in action.  He claims that he couldn’t really infer anything from the side-by-side pictures right after he told us he DID infer that it was a “comparison of two crazy ladies”.  See how dishonest these guys are when they get people in private — even dishonest with their OWN members.  Amazing!

Then Bradfield plays off like he didn’t realize the picture was of the Whore of Babylon - - again, why is this guy trying to teach people theology OR logic???

The next bit by Bradfield is astounding.  He implies that we were wrong to conclude Bennett was comparing Dee Dee to a whore, YET Bradfield admits he didn’t know what the picture was AND yet he “concluded” that it was a “comparison of two crazy ladies” (like that makes it better).  But then Bradfield expects us to call up Bennett & ask him what he meant by it.  Sheesh!  But hey, Bradfield said he called up Bennett & Bennett told him he didn’t mean to compare Dee Dee to a whore — case closed, now don’t you feel so much better?  Frost used to play this game when Virgil Vaduva of Planet Preterist was caught red-handed doing things like sending vampire scripts against other people’s websites — Frost told me that he had called up Vaduva & had these private conversations with Vaduva & all was well.  No public admission, no repentance.

But Bradfield does seem to regret what Bennett did…but not because Bennett was comparing another man’s wife to a whore..or even to a “crazy lady” if we buy Bradfield’s cover story, but Bradfield thought it wasn’t a “smart move” because Bennett was called out publicly on it & Bradfield can’t have people making SGP & the hyperpreterism movement as a whole look bad.

Bradfield then gives a lame excuse as to why he deleted from SGP a public call for Bennett’s repentance.  What???  Is that hitting too close to home??  Was it showing the SGP Admins in a bad, athough truthful light??? Nope, can’t have that.

After feeding that bull-story to SGP members, what was Bradfield’s conclusion?  Not that Bennett did anything wrong, but that he & his SGP members “learn how unsafe it is to….” What?  Get caught doing some unsavory thing?  Learn that they should be more careful & perhaps not send emails to people who will ACTUALLY call them on it???  I do hope some of the SGP wise up to what is going on with their little group.  It should give some person there with a conscience reason to question being led by guys like Frost, Bradfield, & Bennett — guys who write this kind of explanation to their members & hope they buy it.

To conclude, a little background info on the actual picture of Dee Dee — She is a big Apple/Macintosh fan & a once in a life time opportunity came up where she was able to go to “Mac World”.  This involved flying, which was a great hurdle for her but with the Lord’s help, she got over her fear & got on that plane & went to Mac World.  To add to the excitement & being who she is, Dee Dee decided to have fun & play on the fact that Apple released a new operating system called, guess what??  OS X LEOPARD.  Hey, if Bennett & company got a little more creative, they could have zoomed in & seen that Dee Dee was even wearing Apple-shaped earrings.

So, here we have it.  A couple of thuggish little punks, took another man’s wife moment of following a life’s dream & they marred it with childish & crude humor that we somehow aren’t suppose to “infer” anything from (what do I mean by that???  Maybe Bradfield’s “clarkian” mind will kick in & figure it out but I doubt since he couldn’t figure out the picture was of the Whore of Babylon).

Look you SGP members, I don’t care if you hate my guts, but if any of you have an ounce of decency, I would think you would be outraged by these guys.  Chuck Coty???? You’re always soooo quick to depict your little group as soooo loving. What about it??? David Lee???  Kelly Birks???  Any of the women on SGP do you think this was appropriate??  Anyone??  Will anyone stand up to Frost & his little thugs???

P.S. SGP members, Bradfield “encourages you not to contact [us] in any form or fashion about anything” — nothing cultish there. Maybe he doesn’t want you to possibly learn the TRUTH about them.