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

For those unaware, Wikipedia is an online “open-source” encyclopedia.  Open-source means that almost anyone can contribute & edit.   The first history log listed for the Wikipedia presentation of “Preterism“ appears to be Sept 28, 2001 but I believe the entry was started even before that.  Some background on how this entry has evolved goes as follows (& Dee Dee can fill in the blanks since she was instrumental in the early days).

I believe the entry was initially dominated by the Max King faction of hyperpreterism, now known as the “Transmillennials(tm)” (yes they trademarked the term).  Max King is often considered the founder of the modern hyperpreterist movement.  From the biographical book called “Give Me This Mountain” written by Tim King, Max King’s son, comes this quote:

“Now for the first time the founding story of fulfilled Bible prophecy is told. From its roots seventy years ago in West Virginia to its breakthroughs in biblical renewal today—all across the world.” (backcover Give Me This Mountain)

So, it is clear that the King’s believe Max King is the “founder”.  This is important because during the early days of the Wikipedia entry on Preterism, there was wanton promotion of Max King.

By 2004 (perhaps much sooner) Dee Dee began contributing & editing the Preterism entry to make it more balanced.  There was a major editing war where Dee Dee would make a change & the hyperpreterists would change it back to their hyperpreterist slant.

During these edit wars, one hyperpreterist (Virgil Vaduva) even threatened to sue Wikipedia unless it allowed him to dictate the entry — claiming he had trademarked the term. (see evidence)  And in 2003 Vaduva actually DID arrogantly apply for a U.S. trademark on the word “preterism” (see evidence).  So, not only was Vaduva arrogant enough to try to trademark a theological term, but he lied to Wikipedia about actually obtaining the trademark, threatening Wikipedia like a common rock-throwing thug.

Vaduva’s threat to Wikipedia is as follows (notice how he was concerned with “business losses”)

“you are asking for legal trouble by continuing to allow the labeling of a large group of people as “heretics” - PRETERISM is a registered U.S. trademark and you continue to allow the mark to be denigrated and allow Dee Dee Warren to create business losses for our organization. Either put a stop to this negative attack on PRETERISM, or remove the definition completely from your website. I am tired of trying to negotiate with you guys and getting nowhere with you.” (Vaduva threatening to sue Wikipedia)

As the “editing war” heated up, hyperpreterists were even encouraging one another to go to Wikipedia & join in on the battle.  A quote from Vaduva’s own website is as follows:

“I encourage all of you to keep an eye on Wikipedia’s definition of Preterism and if possible try to eliminate any partial preterist influences and mis-deeds occuring there. Let the edit wars begin!” (from Vaduva’s website)

They were being encouraged to specifically ELIMINATE non-hyperpreterist influences & reveled in the idea of an edit war.

As the edit war raged on, Dee Dee enlisted the help of a hyperpreterist named Mike Beidler (who is now a functional atheist - see footnote*) to help resolve the dispute.  With Beidler’s help, Dee Dee was able to make some headway on a more NPOV (neutral point of view) entry.  (see evidence).  But the entry still remained fatally flawed & remains so to this day.  Let’s look at the entry itself & comment as we go:

Under the “History of Preterism” header we see this sentence:

“Due to resistance by Protestant Historicists, the Preterist view was slow to gain acceptance outside the Roman Catholic Church.”

This is an untrue statement IF we see that historically, the Protestant/Reformed theologians DID hold to the notion that MOST of the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24/Mk 13/Lk 21) was fulfilled in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple — YET, those theologians didn’t call their belief “preterism” since there never was really such a theological school.  Hyperpreterists MUST perpetuate this notion that the Church has not held any form of preterism so that hyperpreterism can maintain its conspiracy theory that 2000 years worth of Christianity got it all wrong.  If it is seen that MOST of the Church has held to a historical form of preterism, it would immediately show that what hyperpreterists advocate is indeed HYPER (beyond the original intent & scope).

The major errors in the Wikipedia entry come in under the header, “Preterist Sub-Variants“.  Watch this blatant promotion of hyperpreterism:

“Another sub-variant of traditional preterism is “full or consistent preterism”. This theology follows the hermeneutics of partial preterism a step farther, claiming that all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Partial Preterists assert that this was not the original form of Preterism, but that it was a later corruption of preteristic theology. On the other hand, Full Preterists claim that they are merely embracing the proper conclusions of the very hermeneutics endorsed by partial preterists. Also, Full Preterists do not agree with the partial pret claims that their theology goes beyond the original “intent” of preterism. Protestants generally agree that the ‘intent’ of Christian doctrine is governed by Scripture alone, and not by fallible men. Therefore, the partial preterist argument fails to meet Full Preterism on its own grounds. What is the solution? Some feel that partial preterists, in refusing to deal directly with the exegetical arguments proposed by Full Preterists, have lost credibility to any fair hearing. Therefore, it is suggested by Full Preterists that their opponents return to “Sola Scriptura” foundations.” (from Wikipedia on Preterism)

First off, how can historic preterism (here labeled as “partial preterism”) be a “sub-variant” of itself?  The original CANNOT be its own variant.  Now, when a variant goes beyond the original intent & scope, it is typically called HYPER such as when HYPER-Calvinism goes beyond the original intent & scope of historic/traditional Calvinism YET, you see no reference to that in the above paragraph.  Instead, there is blatant editoralizing which basically implies that historic Preterists will not “deal directly” with the supposed “exegetical” arguments of hyperpreterists.  And this hyperpreterist editorial ends by basically claiming historic preterists do not use the Bible as their governing rule…as if hyperpreterists do.  That entire paragraph should be deleted from the entry.

The inconsistencies of the entry are very apparent.  For example, we saw earlier how someone was trying to portray historic preterism as merely a Roman Catholic invention yet under the heading called “Partial Preterism” we read:

“Historic or Partial preterism is the older of the two views, dating back to even the 2nd century Church fathers…”

Shouldn’t this heading then more accurately be called HISTORIC PRETERISM since it is the OLDER version (or rather the ORIGINAL)?  Why is the HYPER version being promoted as a mere variant where in other sciences it would be called a MUTATION or distortion?

Compare how hyperpreterism is handled on Wikipedia with how Hyper-Calvinism is handled.  See Hyper-Calvinism link

The Hyper-Calvinism entry first rightly makes the HYPER brand of Calvinism a distinct entry so as not to lend it credibility from the original form.   The Hyper-Calvinism entry accurately portrays it from deviating from the original:

“Hyper-Calvinism historically arose from within the Calvinist tradition…”

And further, the entry lists the main progenitors of Hyper-Calvinism.  The hyperpreterist entry makes it sound like hyperpreterism was always advocated along side of historic preterism.

The Hyper-Calvinist entry even has a heading called “Comparison to historic Calvinist doctrine“.  At least this is an honest heading that shows the reader that whatever they conclude about Hyper-Calvinism, they must understand that it was not merely a “sub-variant” but is a mutation of the original form.

The Calvinism entry on Wikipedia isn’t interlaced & blatantly editorialized with Hyper-Calvinism trying to pose as a mere variant.  There is a specific link from the Calvinism entry to the Hyper-Calvinism entry so that the reader will realize that the Hyper-Calvinism is different.

In conclusion, I thank Dee Dee for working those many years to keep the Wikipedia entry on Preterism from being a mere propaganda piece for hyperpreterism but as you can see, it still needs work, but if you do attempt to undertake contributing & editing the entry, just know you will be met by rabid hyperpreterists who have admitted their goal is to ELIMINATE any influences from non-hyperpreterists.  I would also encourage you NOT to refer people to the Wikipedia entry on Preterism since it is such a distorted representation of preterism.

• * Functional Atheist means the person functions or behaves like an atheist.  In this case, Beidler is an avid evolutionist (see his website: http://www.thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/) & thus even though he may pray five times a day he still denies the God of the Bible is the CREATOR (not just the evolver) & so he functions as an atheist.

This was original published on 8/22/06. It is being posted again since the pup doesn’t remember they already tried this crap before and are trying it again and didn’t even bother to find a different article!! ROFL! What boobs. Yo, Bennett, that little box in the upper right-hand of this blog that says “search” means that you could have done a word search for molinism and saved yourself some embarrassment. But this is so much more fun for me. Dork.

PS: It is a blast from the past as Roderick is mentioned while he was still a hyperpreterist. I am leaving that intact.

Here is the original crapfest from the flying monkey.

King Neb is up to his usual nonsense. When will the hyperpreterists get it straight that “I know you are but what am I?” is NOT a response to their foundational heresy? King Neb points to dishonestly (I will explain why) to this article:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/McMahonHeresyMiddleKnowledge.htm

claiming that Molinism is heretical. But that is irrelevant to whether or not HE is a heretic. If King Neb wishes to denounce Arminianism as heretical that is his business. You see he neglects, dishonestly I believe, to show his audience that this same site quoted above, for many (if not all) of the same reasons:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/Arminianism.htm

says that Arminianism is heretical. And again, if any Calvinist is convicted that Arminianism is a heresy which denies a foundational doctrine of the faith which renders ones unChristian, as King Neb’s denial of the doctrine of the resurrection does, that is their choice and convictions.

Also I note something interesting in that Molinism article in that it incorrectly identifies Open Theism as “a close brother” which is blatantly incorrect. In fact in the spectrum of Arminianism (and Open Theism is Arminian - and I reject Open Theism, I affirm God exhaustively knows the future) molinisim is as far as one can get from Open Theism. Open Theism denies that God knows the future free will acts of men. Molinism and all other forms of Arminianism affirm that God knows the future free acts of men, molinism goes so far to say that God knows all the possible future free acts of men should the situations be different. What the article is objecting to is plainly Arminianism, and again, if King Neb and Roderick wish to say that Arminianism is foundationally heretical, they should do so openly and not only when it suits them. Now if they wish to say that Arminians deny sovereignity, here is a newsflash for them - in a similar (but not the same - see below) sense in which I say that hyperpreterists deny the resurrection - to a Calvinist - Arminians DO! That is no great insight. If Sovereignity is taken to mean what Calvinism believes, then Arminians absolutely DO deny that at key points but intersect at others.

No one ever said that hyperpreterists (and we made this abundantly clear on Gene Cook’s show) don’t have a doctrine that they call “resurrection.” They do. But it is such a radical redefinition of what the orthodox call resurrection that it is a denial of the doctrine. And because it is a foundational doctrine explicitly condemned in the Bible, it is fatal. You see, cultic manipulators of heretical theology will say nearly anything to deflect from their errors, but I don’t flinch. From a Calvinist perspective Arminians do deny God’s sovereignity as they define it - then….. it is up to Calvinists and Arminians to Biblically and historically reflect upon whether or not this is fatal and if the redefinition/differences is to such a degree that there might as well not be a doctrine at all. That is the case with hyperpreterism. That is not the case with the soteriological issue. If they wish to choose to say so, they will be hard-pressed not to admit that they are heretics from the POV of the orthodox. You see this is one of those arguments that is called falling upon one’s own knife, in order to use it, they have to commit ritual suicide. Anything to save one’s heresy I suppose…..
Of course, I could just claim I am a Calvinist and redefine the term. That would be the hyperpreterist way. The rest of Roderick’s really hideously thought-out piece will be dispatched at a later date.

Obfuscate all you want King Neb. You deny the resurrection. You are outside of any historic definition of the faith. It really doesn’t trouble me when a heretic doesn’t consider me his sister, in fact, I welcome that.
I am waiting for Roderick’s site to be honest in its condemnation of Arminians in their belief system as nonbelievers in their eyes. If they just use that argument when it is convenient…. well that is called being a theological sheister.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Oh heck…. I feel a prophecy coming on………. tomorrow…… the hyperpreterists will try to dodge their heresy with revealing……… I AM NOT A CALVINIST! Oh wait, they’ve done that already. Come on folks, cut them some slack. They don’t got a whole lot more to work with, when you deny the resurrection there just isn’t too much to say……

Look! A plane!

I would laugh at how pathetic this all is if not for two things. Roderick and King Neb are two guys that I would love to see repent of their heresy and join the Christian family. I have no personal ill will towards either of them.

And second, if I laugh, Leslie may run in stark terror since the mere hint of my laugh gave her “shivers.” Wow. Bwaaaaahahahahahahaa and lililililililililili for good measure.

Postscript: I should become a Calvinist just to watch some panties get in a bunch.  However, in all seriousness, I continually examine the claims of Calvinism.  Who knows… maybe one day, but then what will poor King Neb do?  Perhaps then the topic will be the funk in my shoes…..

Try the divide and conquer game once again. Samuel Frost just wrote me with a totally retarded question that would have as an option that the Wittenburg Door interviewed an “imposter” despite the fact that I have that link on my own site.

So my friends, expect this. Samuel is going to once again try to drive a wedge between Roderick and myself due to our different stances on soteriology, and I have a few other suspicions.

Newsflash: Roderick and I don’t agree on a LOT. We are partners on this blog to oppose hyperpreterism. He doesn’t agree with everything I say, and I don’t agree with everything he does. It isn’t necessary.

Come on Samuel, while your flying monkeys are screeching about Roderick being obsessed with your stank site, you are sending stupid emails about three-year old articles.

BTW, your email has been blocked. Or more precisely, I set up a gmail rule that will take any email you send, send it right back to you and delete it so that I never even see it. I have been doing that with the pup for a while now. I took our prior communications on good faith which you have proven you do not have. Especially considering how just a few short months ago you sent me the odd little note, “How are you old gal?” which is not only completely weird but also completely inappropriate. And (shhhh, don’t tell your monkey) I had asked you in the past not to write me again. However, I am always willing to give another good faith chance. You blew it by breaching someone else’s confidences. I will not be a party to that.

Run along now and play with your puppy and monkey.

Shhhhhh, don’t tell anyone that I am a preterist, postmillennial, molinist. I have only said that about a zillion times, and Samuel’s flying monkey already tried that game before.

Did I say that out loud? Doh! If any of you wonder why I am so involved with Apple lately, I would go absolutely batty with this drivel if I didn’t have some beautiful shiny distractions.

One of Samuel’s flying monkeys is posting some really stupid stuff over at another blog. One of them is the fact that “Samuel Frost” is really large in the tag cloud to the right at this blog. At first I thought, “Self, he could not possibly be THAT retarded.” Then I considered who it was and changed my mind.

Let me educate curious George. I will do it in bullet points to make it easier, unfortunately I can’t explain it in pictures, so he will have to read.

1. “Tags” are different from “Categories.” We don’t have a category cloud. I don’t put individual people as categories.

2. Tags are rarer than categories, every post should have a category, not all have tags.

3. Therefore OBVIOUSLY if there is a particular person who is the alleged “scholar” of the movement, they will be tagged more often. I think George is jealous he isn’t mentioned.

4. This blog underwent a radical theme change between when it was part of The PreteristSite and now that it is on its own. I didn’t use categories for a long time in the beginning; thus in the tag cloud HYPERPRETERISM (is larger than Samuel Frost) when it shouldn’t appear at all as it is a category and not a tag.

Thus, the fact is that the system is inconsistent and the tag cloud is a very poor way to judge what is spoken about most. As interesting as he may be, Samuel is not THAT interesting.

I think in order to introduce more uniformity, I am going to ask the authors to use both tags and categories in a blended way. That means categories (with the exception of so and so’s posts) will also appear as a tag, but a tag will not always be a category. For instance, look at how I handled this post for an example. However, due to years of prior inconsistency, a tag cloud is more for eye-candy than true statistical analysis but desperately grasping heretical monkey paws will clutch at anything.

I know the flying chimp won’t even understand that last paragraph. Fly along now and keep trying to carry Dorothy back to the wicked witch of the west. Too bad the demonic witchery that is hyperpreterism is already melted under the pure water of the Word of truth.

Buh-bye.

Todd Dennis was perhaps the main progenitor of hyperpreterism on the Internet.  Starting in 1996, he had amassed the largest “archive” of preterist & hyperpreterist materials anywhere.  Many of the now popular hyperpreterist websites had to directly lift material from his website to jump start their own.

In 2006 Todd was one if not the first modern hyperpreterist to renounce that false teaching & instead of going away quietly like hyperpreterists tell us to do, Todd seeks to undo some of the damage he directly & indirectly caused in the lives of others.

I want to here, publicly apologize & ask Todd forgiveness for so rudely opposing him while I was STILL a hyperpreterist.  To use the vernacular of the 20-30 something crowd associated with the hyperpreterist movement, I want to say, “Todd is one brave dude!” He has had to endure (sometimes alone, except for Christ), the barbs of former hyperpreterist friends who have done everything from claim he is suffering from emotional problems to saying the only reason he left hyperpreterism is due to a personal issue.  They don’t seem to want to realize that people can & do leave the cult because they realize it is a cult.

Todd has recently issued a challenge to hyperpreterists (he calls them “full preterists” so that they may receive his words a bit more readily):

“If you are of a full preterist mindset, and are hiding your views from your pastor, what good are you doing for your church or for the body of Christ? Don’t put yourself above the church. If it is the truth, then so be it: come clean and be willing to take a stand. If you are in a position of leadership, then you have all the more reason to be up front and honest. Otherwise, how long do you intend to wait? Until you have secretly converted the entire church to full preterism (as if), or until you can secure enough people to split the church over your hobby horse end times position? Now is the time to be honorable and to come clean.”

Todd seems to realize that hyperpreterism operates more like Romans 16:17-18 & Jude 1:4).  But what Todd has embarked upon lately is to chronicle as he says, “the many shocking & unbiblical statements coming from the full preterists”. And let it not be compared that non-hyperpreterists do often make such statements as well — we’re talking about ratios here.  For every 1 out 100 non-hyperpreterists making such statements, there is probably 8 out of 10 hyperpreterists making such statements & behaving with a corrupt character.

Todd started a page to examine the “regressive doctrine of hyperpreterism”.

Todd says:

It is a sad but common tendency of full preterists to treat the view as the gospel.  In fact, Don Preston often refers to “the gospel truth of Covenant Eschatology”.   Now, it is one thing to be confident that your personal theology is correct, but there seems to be a point where such statements cross a line.

For instance, it is commonly declared in articles and discussions that full preterism is based upon the Word of God ; therefore, if you don’t agree with that view then you don’t agree with the Word of God.   Likewise, it is commonly stated that Jesus taught full preterism ; therefore, if that view is incorrect then Jesus is a liar.  There are many such comments - so many in fact that those who leave full preterism often go to atheism, no doubt have been convinced of the truth of those statements.

But perhaps the most serious question Todd asks is:

IS FULL PRETERISM JUST A THEOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVE… OR IS IT SOME FORM OF CULT?

He follows that question with the comments:

This may seem like an incendiary question, but it is a legitimate one.  After all, there are such things as dangerous cults, aren’t there?

To most hyperpreterists they are in denial that what they are espousing is a radical depature from historic Christianity let alone hyperpreterism being a cult.  To most hyperpreterists, Christians who question them  & their conclusions are merely “heretic hunters”, but beliefs have consequences whether those beliefs cause a person to smash planes into sides of buildings or if those beliefs cause a person to lead people away as if they were leading away “silly women”. (2 Tim 3:6)

Todd concludes with these very revealing comments:

I must admit, it took me two years of being out of the group before such thoughts even crossed my mind.   But the cruel barrage against those who left the view and - heaven forbid - had anything critical to say about it after leaving has been relentless.   I have honestly never seen anything like it in my life… how quickly people can be seen as bitter enemies for simply talking about how the Holy Spirit has led them in a different direction.   The smears and insults against very sincere people - and the methods employed to silence them - has forced me to rethink the level of danger in joining up with this full preterist splinter group.

How true & again, let’s keep ratio in mind.  Why is it that this kind of behavior affects & infects hyperpreterism more than probably any other group?  Because hyperpreterism has as its main premise an arrogant hubris that MUST believe that there has been a 2000 year conspiracy.

I hope people thinking about or just entering the hyperpreterist movement consider what Todd is saying — afterall many of the current hyperpreterists cut their heretical teeth on the material Todd put together & now he is one of the most vocal ones sounding the alarm against it.  Unless a person is operating completely from Proverbs 26:12, they should consider what they are doing.

The link to Todd’s chronicle is: http://preteristarchive.com/Hyper/regressive.html

*image is an inside joke.

Even while I was a hyperpreterist, I was shocked by the behavior of many of the high-profile hyperpreterists (the so-called leaders).  One hyperpreterist guy was known for creating anonymous websites trying to reveal his opponents personal information — so much so that he’d post a google map to the person’s house.

Another instance is where a hyperpreterist guy was caught RED-HANDED running what is called “vampire scripts” against his opponents website.  A vampire script is a little program designed to repeatedly ping the site every second in an attempt to overload & crash it.

Yet another instance is where a hyperpreterist guy would high-jack passwords (via his IT/computer background) & then pose as a legitimate user on a forum & trash his opponents, making them think it was not him.

A couple of personal instances is where a hyperpreterist leader repeatedly called my house so drunk & slurring his words that he scared my daughter which caused me to come home from work to calm her down.  To this day, that hyperpreterist leader will not admit to this & claims instead that I am lying.  The next personal instance is where I received an email from a hyperpreterist leader (again trying to pose as someone else) threatening to harm my wife & daughter unless I shut up.

But there is even MORE cultic behavioral examples.  The most recent one is where someone is sending emails to anyone they can & trying to post it where ever they can the accusation that in 1990 I was arrested on drug charges & sent to prison.

The accusation is framed as if the person personally knows me & is exposing that I was in prison for drug trafficking.  The message being sent around is as follows:

First, I’ve NEVER lived in NY, I’ve NEVER been in prison, I have NEVER had an electronic monitoring device attached, I have NEVER lived in an apartment with an uncle, I’ve NEVER trafficked drugs.  I do not know even one person named Lillian or Lily.

Perhaps had this person who thinks I am the same Roderick Edwards of this arrest case would have done a little research, he/she would realize there is more than one person in the world named Roderick Edwards (see links:

Other People Named Roderick Edwards:

#1: Guy in Canada: http://www.math.uvic.ca/faculty/edwards/
#2: A current H.S. basketball player: http://www.maxpreps.com/california/sports/mcclymonds-(oakland)/roderick-edwards/stats.aspx?athleteid=33c42e0e-2133-4f5d-a1f1-ab0ed75aed6f&ssid=08e31156-1f2d-4c08-b687-afb41d9f9601&urpath=,local,player
#3: Guy in Jamaica: http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Roderick-Edwards/732272492
#4:  A financial services guy: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/a/647/4b5 (probably a black guy since it says he is/was a member of the NAACP — umm..I’m not black)
#5: Guy from Louisiana: http://www.classmates.com/directory/public/memberprofile/list.htm?regId=528927021
#6: Guy in New Hampshire: http://www.spoke.com/info/p61tM35/RoderickEdwards
#7: Guy from CT/NJ: http://www.reunion.com/mylife/729545003 (notice also all the OTHER Roderick Edwards listed)
#8: Another Basketball player: http://www.facebook.com/people/Roderick-Edwards/42803391 apparently from NC & black
#9: Guy in Medical field: http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/357175/Roderick_Edwards
#10: Orthodontist in London: http://www.192.com/local/FULHAM,_LONDON/DENTIST/RODERICK_EDWARDS_-ORTHODONTIST/XD182DCA372484D71B496669257D86C2E
#11: Another Roderick Edwards Arrested: http://www.chathamjournal.com/weekly/news/publicsafety/chatham-crime-blotter-50901.shtml (notice he was 21yrs old in 2005 — I am 40 years old in 2008)
#12: Guy in Florida: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2008/06/08-1081.pdf (note it looks like this guy avoided jail time)
#13: Capt Roderick Edwards, Capt of the Ivanhoe — died in 1892 — http://www.llanbadarnchurchyard.org.uk/Section%20J.htm (I kind of like this Roderick Edwards)

Anyhow, you get my point.  Whoever this is trying to discredit me just goes to prove hyperpreterism & its advocates will stop at nothing to advance their heresy.  If I was that Roderick Edwards arrested in NY, I would be using that now as a testimony…since I would have obviously had a radical nature change — but alas, I’m not as exciting as the fellow this libelous person wants to make me out to be. ;-)  These are the tactics of hyperpreterism.  Oh what a “loving” bunch they are.

They know they can’t get around the FACT that to believe hyperpreterism a person MUST believe there has been a 2000 year conspiracy where Christians have been too dumb to see what hyperpreterists now claim.  So instead, they must do all they can to stop anyone leaving the cult…especially as more & more are leaving AND are telling the truth about the hyperpreterist movement. (See example of another EX-hyperpreterist’s account of the movement: http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/return-from-oz-by-dorothy-anderson/)

Hyperpreterist leader/teacher Don Preston has been teaching his followers yet a new little phrase — no, not his signature “catch the power of this” phrase but the new phrase is designed to help hyperpreterists ignore the fact they are heretics.  The phrase is as follows:

“Don’t slow the train down to throw rocks at barking dogs”.

What Preston means by this is that the critics of hyperpreterism should be ignored & the “train” should just keep chugging along.  The problem is, this little phrase compares 2000 years worth of Christian witness as “dogs”.  Wow!  now we see what Preston thinks of historic Christianity.  But what if instead of “dogs”, the critics of hyperpreterism are what they really are — concerned Christians urgently trying to warn the passengers of the hyperpreterist train that the bridge is out ahead.  The “conductors/leaders” of hyperpreterism are doing all they can to tell the passengers to pay no attention to the historic Church (what these “leaders” are calling “dogs”).

One hyperpreterist guy expressed the hyperpreterist ego in this manner:

Just think: someday a young believer will walk into a Christian bookstore and go to the prophecy section: instead of seeing 60 pre-mill dispy titles, 2 amill titles, and 1 book by either Demar or Hanegraaff, they’ll see books by Preston, Frost, Kloske, Martin, Birks, Noe, Simmons, and King. There will be CD series by Birks and Curtis. There will be debates by Preston. Who knows, there may even be books by Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry talking about why, near the end of their lives and ministries, they abandoned their partial preterist postmillenialism and embraced covenant eschatology. Maybe even one or two 1- volume commentaries on the whole Bible, from a preterist view. How about a Preterist study Bible? (a hyperpreterist fantasizing again)

Um…yeah, the only part I might believe is that Gary DeMar, at the rate he is going will in the future adopt hyperpreterism openly.

Hyperpreterism is gathering speed alright, but it is a downhill slide to ruin.  Get off the train before it is too late.

Phillip G. Kayser listed as a “regent” of Whitefield Theological Seminary wrote a paper in 1999 along with a committee wherein he defines hyperpreterism (so-called “full preterism”) as a heresy.  Although this declaration may not be all that bold since most all Christians would define hyperpreterism as a heresy since it certainly is contrary doctrine & divides Christians from true, historic Christianity (Rom 16:17-18), this coming from a regent of WTS is important because a well-known hyperpreterist “leader” likes to cite his association with WTS as an attempt to validate himself.

In the paper, Pastor Kayser says:

On the topic of eschatology, it seems there as many
answers as there are people to ask. Indeed, true believers
throughout history have held to all three main branches of
end-time chronology: premillennialism, postmillennialism,
and amillenialism. But aside from the differences all have
agreed on core issues and these commonalities reveal full
preterism to be unorthodox (i.e. heresy). (source: http://biblicalblueprints.org/products/Critique%20of%20Full%20Pre-bkl.pdf)

This is a very important point since many hyperpreterists, including the hyperpreterist man associated with WTS, try to claim that hyperpreterism should be accepted as just another alternative YET even with all their variances, all of the “orthodox” eschatologies affirm exactly the 3 things that hyperpreterism denies.  Hyperpreterism, in contradiction to 2000 years of Christian belief-claims 3 things:

1. Jesus came back once & for all in or around AD70.
2. Resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70.
3. Judgment of the wicked & righteous happened in or around AD70.

There are now some hyperpreterists that are beginning to embrace their designation as heretics claiming Acts 24:14 as their crown of honor.  This only proves more & more that hyerpreterists twist the Scriptures to fit their agenda since Acts 24:14 speaks directly of Judaism’s view of Christianity.  Hyperpreterists are in effect, comparing 2000 years worth of Christianity to Judaism.
I urge people to contact WTS & encourage WTS in its stand against hyperpreterism:

Email & Telephone

(863) 683-7899

info@whitefield.edu
* image credit to Todd Dennis

Roderick will be a guest on the “Iron Sharpens Iron“ Radio show out of New York.  Join Roderick & the host Chris Arnzen on December 12, 2008 as Roderick discusses the history of Hyperpreterism.

This show is more of a follow-up to an excellent 2 part series on the subject, done with Steve Atkerson.

The show is from 3pm-4pm ET. You can call in LIVE to 631-321-9694.

Maybe Dee Dee should be my agent

Actually I was surprised to get a 1am phone call from Chris right after I sent him an email thanking him for having the discussion with Steve!

I know this is late (I was in bed very early yesterday shaking off a cold or flu or something, so far I feel much better this morning), but you can listen live to day and this shows are downloadable on the Iron Sharpens Iron site or iTunes (I subscribe to this show via iTunes) after they are down. Steve is a very good friend of mine. Read his letter to me here:

Open Letter of Support from Steve Atkerson

The hyperpreterists will find no succor with Steve. I met Steve through my good friend Dan Trotter.

Listen to these TWO live interviews on “Iron Sharpens Iron”,
WEDNESDAY & THURSDAY, DEC. 10th & 11th, 3-4pm EDT
in New York & Connecticut on WNYG-1440AM Radio
or WORLDWIDE at www.sharpens.blogspot.com
or www.wnygspiritofny.com. CALL IN with your own questions at:
1-631-321-WNYG (9694)

STEVE ATKERSON, President of NTRF (New Testament Reformation Fellowship) (see www.ntrf.org), will address the theme: “WILL JESUS CHRIST RETURN?: An Examination of Hyper-Preterism”.

According to our guest, Steve Atkerson:
“Realized eschatology, or full preterism [Hyper-Preterism], is a new belief system about end times events. Full preterism is unique from all other systems (idealism, dispensational futurism, orthodox preterism and historicism) in that it makes the claim that the actual second coming of Jesus has already happened! Not only that, but both the general resurrection of the read and the final judgment are said to be past events…

…In order to justify these claims, full preterism has to redefine historic Christian theology concerning the second coming, the nature of the resurrection of the dead, and the great white throne judgment. In as much as full preterism is the new kid on the theological block, the possibility of it representing the true biblical view of end times is highly suspect. It could better be designated as unorthodox preterism, because the “full” part of preterism is fully error.”

During this two-day discussion, Steve Atkerson will seek to refute Hyper-Preterism due to these main points:

1. BIBLICAL STATEMENTS ON THE NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD Should Lead To A Rejection of Full Preterism.

2. BIBLICAL STATEMENTS ON THE NATURE OF THE SECOND COMING REQUIRE A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.

3. EARTH-SHATTERING EFFECTS OF THE SECOND COMING & THE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT FORCE A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.

4. THE VARIOUS COMINGS OF THE LORD THAT ARE DISTINCT FROM THE SECOND COMING SHOULD LEAD TO A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.

5. THE PHENOMENON OF TELESCOPING PROPHECY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Would Argue For A Rejection of Full Preterism.

6. THE DOUBLE FULFILLMENT OF SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES ALLOWS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SAME IN NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES AND SHOULD MAKE ONE WARY OF FULL PRETERIST CLAIMS.

7. “ALL” IN THE BIBLE DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN “ALL”, MAKING FULL PRETERISM NOT SO FULL.

8. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETICAL USE OF IMMINENT TIME STATEMENTS:IT AIN’T NECESSARILY SO!THIS ALLOWS FOR A SIMILAR POSSIBILITY IN NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY AND UNDERMINES FULL PRETERISM.

9. STATEMENTS ABOUT THE TRANSFORMATION AND RAPTURE OF LIVING CHURCH AT SECOND COMING MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AD 70 JUDGMENT TO HAVE BEEN THE SECOND COMING.

10. CONFIDENCE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT’S ABILITY TO GUIDE THE CHURCH MUST LEAD TO A REJECTION OF FULL PRETERISM.

Find out what Steve Atkerson and many other biblically orthodox Evangelical Christians believe are the great dangers of Hyper-Preterism by tuning in to this important two-day broadcast!

Here are some links to valuable material on this issue:

http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerfuture.html

http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerrealpret.html

http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkercomings.html

http://preteristsite.com/docs/atker70.html

http://preteristsite.com/docs/atkerwindmills.html