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

In an eschatological series back home at my blog, I’m going through some of the assumptions often read into texts concerning the “end times.” I’ve been struggling to complete the podcast episode Dee Dee invited me to record, so to get my mind actively engaged again, I decided to continue with this series, examining another typical assumption regarding Christ’s “coming” spoken of in the Olivet Discourse, one Dee Dee has touched upon in her commentary and podcast.

Related to the assumptions I’ve already highlighted concerning Christ’s “second coming,” there is another assumption often made when we read mention of His “coming” prior to His death, namely that they expected a “first going” to begin with! After all, if prior to the crucifixion the disciples didn’t really understand that He was going to “go” in the first place, then when they spoke of His “coming” it could not have been His final return at the end of time that they had in mind.

As we will see, not only does this assumption lack any warrant as was the case with the previous assumptions we’ve examined, but it goes contrary to the biblical evidence which strongly suggests they had no idea Jesus was going anywhere.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have expressed over the past few years the view that I was coming to regarding the coming of Christ. (pun intended) That is that the coming of Christ is the reign of Christ bookended by two physical advents. It is both its parts and the whole. This is the most Biblically consistent way I believe of looking at the issue. Now, when I first thought of it, I was wary. I am always wary of theological novelty. I don’t presume to be so clever as to come up with some new theory that others have not. My first encouragement came when I was listening to Greg Bahnsen’s series on Revelation when he quoted Hengenstenberg. I immediately got the book, and I am not exaggerating to say that I got all misty-eyed with joy on how my thoughts were so eloquently put down nearly two centuries ago. Without further ado, here is the Hengstenberg passage that has blessed me so much, and is the key to inoculate oneself against hyperpreterism.

What is interesting is that Hengstenberg is working backwards to the same point I am working forwards to. He is coming at the passage as an orthodox believer in the future final physical return to show that this final return has echoes in the past and is part and parcel of an ongoing event.

I come to the passage as someone who sees clearly the first century application and works forward to show that it must point ultimately to the consummation. To deny either is to rob Christ of the fullness of His reign. Christ is not reigning in hyperpreterist-world as the mediator. He has already given up the Messianic Kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15). And to the hyperpreterist who denies an end of history and tries to claim that Christ already resurrected him, how could Christ even do that when there is no end to the number of the elect as there is no end to history. And an actual infinite number is an impossibility. No matter what number you posit, you can always add one more to it. This makes Calvinistic hyperpreterism absurd. It would fit with an open theism version of hyperpreterism, but not a Calvinist one. Calvinism requires a fixed number of elect that can be foreknown. A never-ending history does not and cannot provide that.

Read the rest of this entry »

After the publication of an exegetical article regarding Matthew 16:27 on the website called, Theology Today (ref) a respondent asked some very good follow up questions which I would like to answer in this current article. 

The contention of the former article is that Matthew 16:27 pertains to Christ’s vindication rather than to any sort of future “Second Coming”.  The article was partially written as a refutation to an heretical group called “Hyper-Preterism” (ref) which claims all major eschatological events occurred in the first-century or more specifically at the year AD70.  The article was partially written to reiterate the historic Christian interpretation of Matthew 16:27, not to introduce some new or personal interpretation. 

In the course of the article I made these statements in especial contrast to how even some non-heretical people may claim, “Jesus came back in judgment in AD70, but there is yet a final future return”: 

Read the rest of this entry »

Hyperpreterists often quote Mt 16:27-28 as proof-texts for hyperpreterism.  They claim that anyone who cannot see those texts as pointing to Jesus’ Second Coming are “dishonest” yet 2000 years of Christian interpretation of Mt 16:27-28 has not produced anything like hyperpreterism.  In the article that follows, I’d like to exegete ALL of Mt 16, verse-by-verse.
Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a Public Service Announcement from the Angelic Accounting Office of Heaven.

Greetings humans — In the course of balancing the books of time & space, it has come to the attention of the AAOH that a major error has occurred in line 210 of subsection 14 of the Prophetic Fulfillment routine.  It seems that Christians for the last 2000 years have believed & have been teaching that Jesus is coming back in their future, along with other events such as the general resurrection & the Judgment of the wicked & righteous.

We thought that you Christians would have understood that Jesus actually came back & all of these events were fulfilled in the year AD70 — after all, we sent our Master Communicator to teach you these things, but we guess he wasn’t good enough to make sure you understood.

Since Christians have essentially been teaching & “getting saved” under a false gospel for the last 2000 years, the AAOH is considering revoking the salvation of everyone that has believed the “futurist” account.

Thank you & have a good day.

Before a discussion or proposition can progress, it is important that we first define our terms.  For the sake of this essay the word HYPER is used to mean anything that goes beyond the original intent & scope  In the theological sense, hyper is used as a prefix to many otherwise legitimate theological perspectives.  There are some groups claiming to be within historic Christianity that clearly have gone beyond the original intent & scope of Jesus,  beyond His hand-picked apostles, & beyond 2000 years of Christian interpretation.   Whether these hyper groups acknowledge they have gone beyond or not, it is still accurate to label them as hyper.

We often hear hypers trying to use Martin Luther & the other Reformers as if they would support some hyperism.  You will see hypers using Luther’s quotes against Papalism & trying to compare it to hyper’s stance to the Church & 2000 years worth of historic Christianity.  Hypers fancy themselves as either the new or a continuance of the Reformers & the Reformation.  But just a casual look beyond the catch phrases will show that neither Luther nor the Reformers would have supported the hypers of our day any more than they supported the hypers of their day.

In the early days of the Reformation, as Luther & other Reformers were making their case against Papalism with Scripture AND historic Christianity, there was a third group we often do not hear about today.  This group was called the “radical reformers“.  Luther called them the “enthusiasts” or the “fanatics” (reference).  This group of 16th century hypers, like modern hypers advocated throwing off all of historic Christianity & starting over — often claiming they want to rebuild Christianity on the Bible alone (as if it has not been so for 2000 years).  The hypers at first supported Luther & the Reformers but then went BEYOND the original intent & scope of the Reformers & instead held much disdain for Luther & the Reformers, much the same way modern hypers disdain historic Christianity & the so-called institutional Church.

As the hypers of Luther’s day became increasingly disconnected from anything that resembled Christianity, the hypers eventually formed into bands of theological & sociological thugs.  They raided castles, churches & monasteries destroying everything in their path.  They were out to destroy the very foundations of 2000 years of Christianity & replace it with a revisioned form.  The “thugs” of today are doing the same but on an ideological level rather than a geographical.

Luther & the other Reformers didn’t just wink at what these hypers were doing but instead, Luther urged the political authorities to take action against them.  This is evidenced most in a tract Luther wrote called: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants.

The peasants have taken upon themselves the burden of three terrible sins against God and man; by this they have merited death in body and soul… they have sworn to be true and faithful, submissive and obedient, to their rulers… now deliberately and violently breaking this oath… they are starting a rebellion, and are violently robbing and plundering monasteries and castles which are not theirs… they have doubly deserved death in body and soul as highwaymen and murderers… they cloak this terrible and horrible sin with the gospel… thus they become the worst blasphemers of God and slanderers of his holy name” (Against the Rioting Peasants — Martin Luther, 1525)

A truer picture of Luther & the Reformers will see that they were fighting on one hand against the Papists with their Creed without Scripture & on the other hand against the Enthusiasts/Hypers with their Scripture without Creed.   And here we must once again define our terms — Creed is merely the English form of the Latin word “credo” which literally means “belief” or “I believe”.  The issue with the Papists is that they often would put forward beliefs without Scripture to back it up whereas the Enthusiasts/Hypers would put forth Scriptures disconnected from the beliefs of 2000 years of Christianity (or 1500+ years at the time of the Reformation).  Both approaches were as incorrect yesterday as they are today & tomorrow.

Perhaps a quote that summarizes Luther’s perspective on approaching Scripture is this one:

You should meditate, that is, not in the heart alone, but also externally. You should work on it and ply the oral speech and the lettered words in the book, read them and reread them again and again, noting carefully and reflecting upon what the Holy Spirit means by these words. And take care that you do not tire of it or think it enough if you have read, heard, said it once or twice, and now profoundly understand it all; for in that manner a person will never become much of a theologian. (Sammtliche Schriften — Martin Luther)

That quote might be compared to another by Luther wherein he shows that it is possible for someone to approach the Bible “rationally”, “logically”, & even with “consistency” & STILL come out with error:

The first concern of a theologian should be to be well acquainted with the text of Scripture, a bonus textualis, as they call it.  He should adhere to this primary principle: in sacred matters there is no arguing or philosophizing; for if one were to operate with the rational and probable arguments in this area, it would be possible for me to twist all the articles of faith as easily as Arius [an infamous anti-Trinitarian], the Sacramentarians, and the Anabaptists did.  But in theology we must only hear and believe and be convinced in our heart that God is truthful, however absurd that which God says in His Word may appear to be to reason. (Auslegung des 45 — Martin Luther)

CONCLUSION

This brings us to the conclusion of this essay.  The hypers, be they of Luther’s time or present or even future will claim as did Arius that they are just asking “logical” questions but then they will move from there to open advocacy of error to eventually displaying aggressive repudiation of the historic Christianity.  They will claim (as they always have) that there has been some sort of conspiracy since the very founding of Christianity & not until they [the hypers] have come & “corrected” the confusion has anything been true.  And with this giant leap of arrogance against all of Christianity, we are supposed to simply yield.  No sirs, ma’ams we shall not yield to their errors no matter how “logical” & with “rational & probable” philosophizing arguments they may use.  Their hyper heresy is heresy not simply because we don’t like it, nor because the majority is against it, but because all of Christianity has been against it throughout all time & because their hyper heresies are NOT “carefully reflecting upon what the Holy Spirit means” & because their hyper heresies “twist all the articles of faith” & try to replace them with something new & foreign to historic Christianity.

So, next time you see a hyper of any sort trying to use Luther & the Reformers to bolster their view, be they such as the restorationists or the children of the restorationist such as the hyperpreterists, or the cultists such as Mormons & JWs — remind them what Luther & the Reformers REALLY thought about the hypers.

This primer or introduction has been written with intent to be used by pastors & “congregants” to familiarize themselves with the basics of hyperpreterism.  Please feel free to copy & share this with anyone & everyone.  Perhaps even incorporate it into a study on heresies.  Maybe even send it to your local seminaries & ask them to interact on it.  Hyperpreterism, though a small & relegated movement, is a very vocal & pernicious movement.  The better prepared Christians are when it pops up, the less damage it will do to individuals & entire congregations/institutions.

First, for those who do not know what hyperpreterism is let me summarize the 3 main positions held by hyperpreterists. (pret sounds like bet).
3 MAIN BELIEFS OF HYPERPRETERISM

1. Jesus came back once & for all in the year AD70
2. The resurrection of the believers happened in the year AD70.
3. The judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in the year AD70.

These 3 points are driven by an over arching premise which is that Christian interpretation & indeed basic Christian understanding has been terribly in error for over 2000 years. Some hyperpreterists even claim there has been a 2000 year conspiracy to cover up the 3 beliefs above.

Now, why is it called HYPER-preterism? The word “hyper” in the theological sense means to go beyond the original intent to scope — so HYPER-preterism is a belief that goes beyond an original version that was simply called preterism. Traditional/Historic preteristic beliefs do see some significance in the AD70 events (See Matthew 24:1-3, Mark 13:1-3, Luke 21:5-7,20) BUT classic preterism did NOT advocate the 3 beliefs mentioned above. Thus, hyperpreterism is considered HYPER just as much as HYPER-Calvinism goes beyond the original intent & scope of traditional/historic Calvinism.

Hyperpreterism is also Heterodox…a heresy. It is NOT a heresy just because we don’t like it, nor is it a heresy because it is “new”, nor is it a heresy because the majority oppose it. Hyperpreterism is a heresy because it is unlike anything ever taught in the history of Christianity…from the very founding to now. Hyperpreterism is as much outside of historic Christianity as is Mormonism & JWs. Hyperpreterists often call their system: Full Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Consistent Preterism, Fulfilled Eschatology, or a new name bandied about in attempt to make it sound more legitimate, Biblical Preterism.

WHERE DID HYPERPRETERISM COME FROM?

The present day versions of hyperpreterism all originated in the 1970s with a man named Max King. King was a “church of Christ” minister who wrote several hyperpreterist books in the 1970-1980s. Hyperpreterism before that was mainly manifested among Universalists (people who believed no one would ultimately be condemned — “everyone is saved”). Perhaps the most infamous group of pre-1970 hyperpreterists was a group in upstate New York in the late 1800s. This group was called the “Oneida Community” (search wikipedia.org). This group formed a commune & practiced their hyperpreterism to the extent of no longer having individual marriages but instead everyone having sexual relations with everyone else — they thought this would be a “logical” conclusion if the resurrection is already passed & people are no longer given in marriage. (Mt 22:30)

Hyperpreterism died out & as I said was revived again in the 1970s. Hyperpreterism is experiencing a resurgence & is beginning to show itself among the churches. Hyperpreterists typically don’t (or can’t) maintain their own congregations so instead, “lone ranger” hyperpreterists either try to influence existing congregations or they drop out of attending church & instead try to influence Christians where ever they can.

Hyperpreterism is mainly an online phenomenon. Some of the hyperpreterists came through so-called “Reformed” teachers such as Gary DeMar who although he claims he is not a hyperpreterist himself, he refuses to call it a heresy & has spoken at hyperpreterist conferences & maintains a friendly presence on hyperpreterist websites.

HOW TO COMBAT HYPERPRETERISM

Hyperpreterism by design is an arrogant & egotistical system — after all it claims 2000 years worth of Christian interpretation has been MAJORLY wrong, so trying to interact with a hyperpreterist one on one will be a frustrating & futile endeavor. Hyperpreterism redefines theological terms & definitions so although a Christian may think they are having a fruitful, scriptural discussion with a hyperpreterist, you must recognize that hyperpreterism like Mormonism & JWs may use Christian sounding terms & even appeal to the Bible — but just like those other cults — hyperpreterism is anything but Christian.

To combat hyperpreterism you MUST keep them on the main premise — that they are trying to tell you that God could not or would not maintain within His Church a basic & correct understanding of the endtimes. Don’t let hyperpreterists leave this premise no matter how much they claim to want to talk about “scripture” or have an “exegetical” conversation. Premises matter & the hyperpreterist premise is faulty to the core.

HYPERPRETERIST TACTICS

Hyperpreterists will try several tactics to break down the defenses (armor) of a Christian. A couple things they will do are:

1. Claim they are only using “Sola Scriptura/Bible alone” methods
2. Claim Hyperpreterism always existed in “seed” form.
3. Claim there has never been a Church council on eschatology.
4. Claim you are unloving or mean to not accept them.
5. Attempt to get legitimate teachers/preachers to validate them.

The first point is perhaps the one that hooked me on hyperpreterism for a time (yes I am a former hyperpreterist). Hyperpreterism often claims it is merely reading/interpreting the Bible as it is written. Hyperpreterists will also pit their interpretation against 2000 years of Christian interpretation by claiming they don’t follow the “Creeds” (this comes from its ‘church of Christ’ foundation). The word Creed, in Latin simply means “belief”. So, unless hyperpreterists are trying to claim they don’t believe anything, they too have a “creed” — its just that the hyperpreterist “creed” goes against everything that was ever considered Christian. Another tactic hyperpreterists try to employ under point #1 is to compare themselves with the Reformation & the Reformers like Martin Luther. The problem is, hyperpreterism would have been rejected by the Reformers as well. Hyperpreterists are more like the “radical reformation” (look up on wikipedia.org) which wanted to chuck everything & start over. The Reformers & especially Martin Luther, rejected the radicals as heretics.

Lastly on this point, hyperpreterists will often try to claim that Luther was teaching something never before taught in the Church — this is categorically untrue. Luther was merely re-espousing long advocated beliefs that are found more than just in “seed” form both in the Bible & in historic Christian interpretation. (see Augustinianism for example).

Point #2 in hyperpreterists tactics is one I’ve seen used by so-called “conservative hyperpreterists”. They want to pretend there are traces of hyperpreterism all throughout Christian history. What they do is find a quote by some theologian that sounds like preterism or hyperpreterism & then tell you it is a “seed” of their belief even if the overall premise & position of the theologian is clearly in opposition to hyperpreterism. The hyperpreterists attempt to find “seeds” of hyperpreterism under every little theological rock is merely wishful thinking. No serious theologian in history has ever advocated what hyperpreterists believe…now that in itself doesn’t make hyperpreterism wrong, but it does make their claim to find “seeds” a dishonesty.

Point #3 is an oft repeated tactic of hyperpreterist followers who have picked up this line from hyperpreterist teachers — I say this because most hyperpreterist followers have scant knowledge of Christian history — to the point of you will often see them spelling Arminianism as Armenians .

First, the use of this tactic seems to miss the point as to why councils were called. Church councils were not called to impose a new belief on the Church but rather councils were primarily called only when a new heresy rose up. So, the reason there has never been a need for a specific council addressing eschatology is because there has never been a heresy divergent enough from the traditional teaching on eschatology. The point is, even with variances among the existing eschatological models — ALL of the eschatological models AGREE on EXACTLY the 3 beliefs that hyperpreterism denies. This is significant.

Point #4 is used when all else fails. Hyperpreterists will begin to claim anyone who opposes them must “hate” them & want them to “go to hell” — even if their opponents never use these words. Hyperpreterists will play the victim & persecuted in attempt to gain sympathy. Don’t buy it.

Point #5 is used more by the hyperpreterist “leaders”. They will try to get well known, respected teachers/preachers to say hyperpreterism is not a heresy & then they will cite these people in their defense. I’ve seen hyperpreterists do with with people such as Gary DeMar & James Jordan. Hyperpreterists will also attempt to join legitimate groups such as ETS or a local seminary & use this as “proof” they are valid.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is, hyperpreterism is just as NON-Christian as is Mormonism & JWs. We should treat hyperpreterism & hyperpreterists the same way we treat Mormonism & JWs. That doesn’t mean we have to “hate” them — as Christians really shouldn’t hate anyone — but we most certainly should not go around acting like hyperpreterists are Christian brothers & sisters. And we should be suspect of everything they “teach” as it is all tinged with their hyperpreterism (hyperpreterism ISN’T just about eschatology — it affects everything as all of our beliefs affect our other beliefs). Remember, Mormonism also claims to follow Jesus, even to the point of promoting itself as “Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints”. Don’t be fooled. Hyperpreterism is a heresy & anyone advocating it in principle or by name is a heretic. Pray for them to be released from this horrible error.

Sam Harris a prominent atheist in his book “A Letter to a Christian Nation” makes the claim,

 If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop calamities, or He does not care to. God, is either impotent or evil.

Christianities response to this attack against God by the atheist rebuts that while God according to His purpose allows evil to exist at the end of the day He will right all the wrongs when as Scripture tells us He is “all in all”.  The Christian message of hope for the world, that God is in control and will one day right all the wrong is the only light in a very dark world.

Commenting on 1 Cor 15:28, where we are told one day God will be “all in all” N.T. Wright in his work, Surprised by Hope states,

Turning back to 1 Corinthians 15, we find Paul declaring that as the goal of all history, God will be “everything in everything”….God will be all in all.  The tense is future.  Until the final victory over evil and particularly over death, this moment has not arrived.  To suggest that is has is to collude with evil and death itself. Pg 101

However there is a movement that has originated within “Christian” circles that is an ally of Mr. Harris, the movement is called Hyper-Preterism.  Not long ago a Hyper-Preterist informed me,

Evil never ends,….. The bible doesn’t even speak of it…

 

In collaboration with the enemy the Hyper-Preterist adheres to a system of belief, a man-made tradition that robs Christianity of its answer to the worlds problems. As remarkable as it is someone who perceives of himself as a “Christian” could hold such a diabolical view, the fact that he denies the clear teaching of Scripture on the matter is even more remarkable.

Lets take a look a what Scripture has to say on the subject, all quotes taken from the ESV.

“Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go form your country and your kindred and your fathers hous to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of he earth shall be blessed” Gen 12:1-3

“I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son” today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the endos of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces lake a potter’s vessel” Ps 2:7 – 9

“All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kinship belongs to the Lord and he rules over the Nations” Ps 22:27, 28

“May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us, Selah that your way may be known on earth, you saving power among all nations” Ps 67:1

“May he have dominion from sea to sea and from River to the ends of the earth!….May all the kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!” Ps 72: 8, 11

“The Lord says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind” Ps 110” 1, 4

“For I know their works and their thoughts and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory” Is 66:18

“…But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain that filled the whole earth” Dan 2:35

“Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” Matt 6:9, 10

“Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” Acts 3:21

“When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in under him, that God may be all in all” 1 Cor 15:28

I could go on and on, but these are just a few of the passages that speak to world-wide dominion that lies in store for humanity and creation itself, when all will worship God, sin will be eradicated and God will be “all in all”, what the Christian message of Hope is really all about. The Christian confronts the atheist proclaiming evil will be defeated, sin will be eradicated and one day God will be “all in all.” The atheist disputes this very Biblical message utilizing evil in argument to deny God. Where does the Hyper-Preterist stand, his message is clear, he colludes with the enemy those who oppose the King and His Kingdom, but even he too, will one day come under subjection to the King.

“The Parousia of the Son of Man, Jesus tells them (the disciples), will not be spatially restricted in this way – as the presence of an individual in some place or other – but will be like lightening, which illuminates the whole sky (Matt 24:27; Luke 17:24)….a more careful reading of the simile suggest that it signifies the immaterial and universal nature of Christ’s presence.”, pg 35.

Although Perriman is not a Hyper-Preterist many I’ve encountered when put to the test admit the “Coming” in the Olivet discourse is metaphorical.  When confronted, Hyper-Preterist’s admit the term, “coming of the Son of man” in the Olivet Discourse in their view is a reference to the “immaterial” presence of Christ in conjunction with the events of 70AD. And while this interpretation of the Hyper-Preterist as it relates to the term “coming of the Son of man” in the Olivet Discourse has merit, the weakness of their position and underlying hermeneutical principle which requires them to view passages that relate to the 2nd Advent as fulfilled is born out in an examination of Acts 1:9 - 12,

“And when He had said this, even as they were looking [at Him], He was caught up, and a cloud received and carried Him away out of their sight. And while they were gazing intently into heaven as He went, behold, two men [dressed] in white robes suddenly stood beside them. Who said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, Who was caught away and lifted up from among you into heaven, will return in [just] the same way in which you saw Him go into heaven.” Amplified.

The phrase the Amplified translates, “in [just] the same way” in other translations is rendered “in like manner”. What we find in Acts 1 is not a metaphor but a “physical” present and interactive discussion between men in material bodies that concludes as the Lord who was present in His body that rose from the grave levitates into the sky. The same body that was capable of consuming food, and that could be touched and validated that it was very, very material is then lifted up from among those He was having an interactive discussion with until He was so far out of sight He disappeared from their field of vision. The mode and style of the events as described in Acts 1 are of folks in the physical presence of one another discussing events soon to take place when one very material individual all of a sudden begins to levitate in the air and proceeds upwards into the heavens all while His followers, the other “physically” material individuals are viewing His activities. The “manner” in which Jesus Christ departed earth was not a scene that encompassed an event of “immaterial and universal nature”. The scene entailed “the presence of an individual in some place”, the material “physical” individuals were Christ and His disciples and the place, presumably the Mount of Olives.Therefore the term, “coming of the Son of man” in the Olivet Discourse and the “manner” in which Christ will once again return to earth cannot be the same event because of the dissimilarity in nature, manner, mode and style of the 2 events. For the Hyper-Preterist to claim the Olivet Discourse is grounds for his view that the Second Advent occurred in the 1st Century is without warrant. They have no basis, because based on their own interpretation of what “manner” the term, “coming of the Son of man” entails is fundamentally at odds with what we are told will be the manner of Christ’s Second Advent. I believe we’ve shown the inconsistent position of the Hyper-Preterist. What say you?

I have heard statements that preterists believe in a “third coming” of Christ. There are only two ways that someone would say this.

1. They are ignorant of what we believe and should educate themselves first (I personally have an article that deals with this which my opponents seems to be completely oblivious to).
2. They are purposefully misrepresenting the position as we hold it.

It is perfectly fine to say what one’s own conclusions from an opposing argument is, but one must first represent what the other position actually says. This is a very careful and important distinction for credible debate.

There are several other misrepresentations that have gone around that I feel the need to correct.

1. Contrary to Samuel Frost not all preterists believe the “last days” were solely limited to the first century, and thus, deny a creedal statement. Samuel knows better - it is inexcusable. Gary DeMar does limit it to that time frame, but DeMar isn’t known for his clarity in distinguishing himself from heretical views. I do not hold that. Many preterists do not hold that. It is a blanket strawman.

2. I don’t know of any preterist that believes the millennium began in AD70. I am sure there are some, but it is surely a minority opinion. It has been insinuated that I believe that. I don’t.

Hopefully with this information, correct and salient arguments will be made. At least there can be no excuse to continue with misrepresentations. But then again hope springs eternal. I don’t expect hyperpreterists to cease misrepresentation.