On one of the many hyperpreterist websites a “discussion” took place where some of the hyperpreterists claimed to be confused how someone could ever have adopted hyperpreterism and then renounced it and…*gasp* actually work against it. The discussion went as follows:
“Roderick is the person I thought of the most when I made those comments [about how people could leave the movement]. He helped me out immensely when I was new to FP. Since I don’t keep up with the blogs I didn’t even know that he had left FP until a friend mentioned it in a passing comment about a year ago. I was shocked to say the least.” (source)
Yet Cyndi previously says:
“I don’t understand how someone can go from full-preterist to angry anti-pret overnight. We all encounter stumbling blocks in our studies, but you don’t quit and decide to revert back to wrong theology because you hit a wall, you continue studying and keep pushing until you break that wall down. If you know you’re on the right track, but hit a wall, why would you go back to ignorance, but not only that, you actually start fighting against what you once believed? I don’t get it!!” (source)
So, if she didn’t even know I left the movement, how does she come to the conclusion it was “overnight”??? Just ask Dee Dee if I changed “overnight”. Ask the hyperpreterists themselves if it was “overnight”. They will attest that perhaps for the last 5-10 years while I was a hyperpreterist, I was constantly at odds with most of the “leaders” because of what they were teaching.
Can you see how this hyperpreterist’s own words AREN’T making any sense? Or will she claim my pointing this out is me just being “angry”? What do hyperpreterists say to a person who falls into Mormonism but at some point begins to realize it is a lie? Do they tell them to “keep pushing” on? Have you ever heard of Jerald and Sandra Tanner?
Read the rest of this entry »
After hearing a hyper-preterist YET AGAIN accuse a person of going to “Roderick’s side” or “Roderick’s camp”, I’ve decided to make a 9 minute audio which you can listen to by clicking the link below.
http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/all/rodericks_camp.mp3
But just let me say this: RODERICK EDWARDS HAS NO CAMP. No one is following Roderick Edwards. I recall as I left the hyper-preterist movement, people badgering me to tell them “my beliefs”. What is that??? I don’t want to have “my beliefs” — I want to know and believe what Jesus taught, what the apostles taught, what the community of saints believe.
Anyone who has left hyper-preterism or will be leaving hyper-preterism is NOT coming to Roderick’s “side” or Roderick’s “camp” — Read the rest of this entry »
Filed Under (Roderick's Posts) by Roderick_E on 31-08-2009
The Bible calls for Christians to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”, this would mean we’d have to know what faith was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). It has and will continue to be my position that any argument over hyperpreterism must begin at the PROPOSITIONAL level. Letting them pretend to be “exegetical” as if we’re having a discussion between two Christians is allowing them to distort the real issue — which is that hyperpretiersm ISN’T the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”. Even the Nestorians and Arians have a more legitimate claim of being part of the faith than do hyperpreterists. As fundamentally heretical were those two groups, they have more standing to show some connection with Christianity than hyperpreterism has. Whatever hyperpreterism is, it ISN’T Christian.
If you were a soldier engaged in battle, there are a few types of people you wouldn’t want in a foxhole with you. Such as people who… Read the rest of this entry »
In another classic Frostian gaffe, we see where Sam Frost called his recent book co-author, Dave Green a “hyperpreterist”.
Frost said:
“This must mean that issues of “sin”, “death” and “law”, which some preterists have written off, are “not for today” (along with the Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel) [< =Todd Dennis quote]. Here, it appears, Dennis [of PreteristArchive.com] is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries have always called hyper-preterism. This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord’s Table, or church officers.” (http://thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=48)
It appears the link goes no where now, since that site is constantly under re-construction (ironic isn’t it?). Anyhow, Dave Green advocates that there is no more precept for water-baptism or taking the Lord’s Supper (Dave Green — see #106 and #75), so Frost wrote a book with a man he himself considers a hyperpreterist — interesting.
Filed Under (Roderick's Posts) by Roderick_E on 29-08-2009
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
Romans 16:17
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.
1 Corinthians 5:9-11
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.
Yet, despite all of this, some are now telling us to “keep company with” and treat hyperpreterists as if they are “brothers”. Hmmmm… Read the rest of this entry »
Hyperpreterists often make the case they are allowed to “challenge” historic Christianity and the billions of Christians of united interpretation. They believe they are like little Luthers standing up to the big bad Johann Ecks of the world. The interesting thing is, when Luther was accused of being akin to John Wycliffe and John Huss, Luther intially denied the association but later after really reading those men’s writings he agreed he was in their company (see here). However, hyperpreterists leaders like Sam Frost freely associates himself with “heretics” like Arius (see here) and yet gets upset when we agree the hyperpreterists are akin to the Arians.
But just how far can someone go before even heretics consider them heretical? And who gets to decide these things? I mean, if hyperpreterists don’t think the united historic Christian witness gets to decide who is and isn’t within the bounds of the community of saints; who gets to decide when something is outside those bounds? Well, apparently Sam Frost gets to arbitrarily decide such things. During an August 2009 podcast Frost claimed that another faction of “full preterists” are the REAL “hyperpreterists”. Why? Because they go further than Frost and his group. Do you see how laughable and hypocritical this guy is. Listen to the 26 second audio (413 kb)
http://thekingdomcome.com/sites/default/files/cc_hyperpret.mp3
TEXT VERSION:
“Um especially - and I don’t mean to bring this up and I don’t want to discuss it but the Beyond Creation Science stuff - um definitely goes further than - see I would call - in fact I have an article where I do refer to that and then the universalizing tendency, I refer to that as hyper - I call that hyperpreterism. I think a couple of years ago I started saying this stuff is going so far out into - I don’t where anymore” (Hyperpret Samuel Frost claiming other “full preterists” are the real hyperpreterists)
Yes, that quote is exactly word for word how Frost speaks, stammered and convoluted. I like how he brings something up and claims he doesn’t mean to bring it up and doesn’t want to discuss it. When can his fellow “preterists” discuss it with him? Why does he get to decide what is and isn’t brought up and discussed?
But let’s compare this to another quote by Frost — Read the rest of this entry »
Can you imagine a person renouncing Mormonism or JWs and yet remaining in those “congregations”? Can you imagine a person making a profession of faith and remaining in sinful states (such as a prostitute, a drunkard, a thief). There is a reason that after Jesus healed and restored people that He would tell them “Go and sin no more!” (John 5:14, John 8:11). It wasn’t that He believed the person would never have sinful actions but that they should no longer be identified with the sinful-state from which He saved them.
As people begin to wake up to the un-christian nature of hyperpreterism we will begin to see more people leave the hyperpreterist movement. It is a difficult thing to do to be sure. Leaving hyperpreterism isn’t like forsaking one theological position for another. Read the rest of this entry »
Liberal and always liberalizing should perhaps be the motto of the hyperpreterist movement. When Mike Bennett and company first started their hyperpreterist SGP website as a direct alternative to the liberal Planet Preterist website of Virgil Vaduva, the admins of SGP specifically wanted to avoid the junk-theology that was rampant on Planet Preterist. SGP even says SGP is for “well tested theology”. Yet, I once had a rare civil email discussion with Bennett and I told him no matter how much they attempt to ban the liberals from SGP, all hyperpreterist community sites always end up liberal — why? because hyperpreterism itself is NOT “well tested theology”. Hyperpreterism attracts and coddles arm-chair wannabe “theologians”. It celebrates private interpretation and encourages “new” and “fresh” perspectives. Read the rest of this entry »
Well, here we go. The hyperpreterists have been using anyone they can to validate themselves. If anyone throws them a bone, they are romp & ready to chase after it. When there was a public disagreement on epistemology between Dr. Kenneth Talbot & myself, the hyperpreterists were there slobbering to be the first to claim I was “spanked” by Dr. Talbot, although I think Dr. Talbot would admit many fine Reformed folks have come down on either side of the epistemological argument. However, the hyperpreterists are out in the dogpatch by themselves.
Recently, hyperpreterist “leader” Sam Frost has been experiencing some resistance to his pandere’ modus operand…from his OWN fellow hyperpreterists none-the-least.
Do I get to puff up & claim that Sam Frost was “spanked” by his fellow hyperpreterist, Kelly Birks? Or maybe I should make a video…or a whole string of videos. Can I borrow your mac Jason? Read the rest of this entry »
For awhile now I have been advocating against hyperpreterism by appealing to “historic Christianity”. Many of the hyperpreterists assume that when I say “historic Christianity”, I really just mean the creeds. Although it’s interesting that I hardly ever cite any specific creed. Some hyperpreterists, have even taken to calling Christians; “hyper-creedalists”. Again, these Christians hardly ever reference specific creeds.
So, what do we mean when we appeal to historic Christianity? Do we really just mean the creeds? No. Rather, the following analogy may be helpful to clarify this issue. Read the rest of this entry »
