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

As a spin-off from my conversation with Roderick Edwards (MP3 available at that link), there were some discussion posts on Roderick’s site done with my permission. I am planning on addressing all of them as I get time with some of them being a bit better thought out than others and requiring more time. With all due respect to the lady in question (she goes by the handle of Patricia), the portion that follows were by far the most ill-conceived and frankly vacuous, but unfortunately not uncommon.

I will quote and respond as follows:

Talk Talk Talk! Words Words Words! I am very sorry, Dee Dee, But I have no clue where you are coming from, What in the world ARE YOU talking about???? What exactly is it, that you are trying to say? Get to the point! PLEASE! (And may it be Biblical)

It is very difficult to know what she is on about. Is she upset because I was on an audio program and actually dared to talk? Is she upset because the subject wasn’t an exegetical dissection of a particular passage? The show subject outline was Roderick’s, so perhaps she ought to be taking it up with him if she finds the subject matter beneath her attention and simply “talk, talk, talk.” Of course nothing at all substantive was proferred by her as to anything that wasn’t Biblical, and it is terribly reductionist to behave as if one is not being Biblical even if it is not Biblical text that is being discussed. If faith is all of life, then everything is done and spoken in that paradigm. I find it sadly ironic that someone who was kvetching about talk offered absolutely zero in substance. That is called hypocrisy.
In another post:

Michael, you said to Dee Dee: “You do realize Dee Dee, that if you are holding the Confessions above the scripture, then you are in fact violating the Confessions themselves. I am accusing you of this, because you have no reason from scripture, or the Partial Preterist hermaneutic, to say that the resurrection has not occurred yet.” THANK YOU FOR USING THE SCRIPTURE TO MAKE YOUR POINT!

Of course I do no such thing, and if someone has to construct a straw man to “refute” a person’s position, then that person has something that is rotting under the living room couch. But let’s take this at face value and perfom a reductio ad absurdem: 

Patricia, please show only from the Bible what books are in the Bible.

Of course she can’t do that.  She can’t even start because she doesn’t even have a Bible to start with.  Now of course the naked fact is that for “my point” I do in fact use the Scripture.  Patricia, however, has not even bothered to find that out by doing something as simple as visiting the weblink given at the end of the discussion.  Of course Patricia hasn’t made the minimum of effort to find out what my point actually is which is argued in “Grave” Heresy:  Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church and again in my response to Samuel Frost Frosty the Strawman.

And showing dee dee where she is in error of the very thing she is accusing others of! What I have heard from Dee Dee thus far, (interview w/ Roderick and her articles)….

Really, and what “thing” is that?  We are not told.  Now if Patricia is claiming to have read my articles (plural), her comment is absolutely indefensible.  I have written nearly a 150 page on Matthew 24 with hundreds of Scriptural citations.  My articles referenced above make comprehensive arguments for my case based upon Scripture as well.  Did Patricia just make that comment up?

I can not see where she backs up what she is saying with scripture? And, what exactly, is she saying, anyway? It seems to me, she likes to hear herself talk, I know, that may sounds harsh ,but all I hear from her, is concerning the early century writers, and talking of this position, and that position: but I do not hear her speak of what Gods word has to say!

It is ironic for someone who has failed to interact substantively with any point that I made with other than dismissive hand-waving and has apparently stated something blatantly untrue (I don’t use Scripture in any of my articles - plural) out of carelessness would claim that someone else simply likes to hear themselves talk.  The irony is thicker than a cheesecake. Of course interacting with my point requires that the listener be interested in what the point is and back up that interest with doing the groundwork.

I believe we have to measure TRUTH with the Bible only! Not, measure truth, by man! Might we ALL, seek Gods word for Truth , and not seek the TRUTH from man? “Let God be TRUE and every man a Liar”

That sort of anti-historical reductionism will not fly.  Patricia has zero grounds to even have a Bible under that criteria (which is cultic to the core).  It appears that Patricia has no idea of what Sola Scriptura is, it is not SolO Scriptura which is the stock and trade of the cults.  No big surprise there.

I am sure Patricia is a nice enough gal.  In fact I am positive of it.  However, simply ranting without foundation doesn’t cut it and is extraordinarily disrespectful to the effort that one’s opponent has put into their work.  I disagree strongly with David and Roderick, I don’t demean them with trite Christianisms that show I have not spent even a minimum amount of time trying to understand their point and their rationale.  I spent two days prior to the interview with Roderick reading some of David’s material and other background material so that I would grant Roderick both the respect that I wish to understand his point and to give him my best so as not to waste my time.  I expect the same from others unless they simply wish to hear themselves talk.

Oh, and something makes me think that Patricia and others (since I really do not wish to single her out as others made similarly empty cases) are not aware of this statement by David Green:

For one thing, it means that the creedalists are correct when they say that we may not refute the elemental traditions of the Gospel that are contained in the creeds.   They are right that such things are “not up for debate.”  The rudiments of the Gospel are indeed divine presuppositions without which the historic Faith and the Church would completely disappear. We are not free to refute or nullify any of the cardinal elements of the Christian Faith.

David just said that certain elements of the Creed are simply unquestionable, and we are not free, using the Bible alone (an impossibility without the decisions of “men” anyhows), to change those and still be within the Christian faith.

Go figure.