Why do Hyperpreterists Continue to Misrepresent?
Filed Under (dee dee's posts, hyperpreterism, tactics, twaddle) by dee dee on 09-03-2009
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.
In all fairness, everyone who holds to a particular point of doctrine is prone to contend that those on the opposite side are unable to “answer” their arguments. Calvinists make such claims when dealing with Arminians, Pentecostals do it when dealing with non-Pentecostals, Dispensationalists do it when dealing with non-Dispensationalists (and yes, Full Preterists do it with Futurists with whom they disagree).
I have seen some of the arguments you, yourself have made in the context of dealing with dispensationalism in which you offer a series of reasons why your view is logical and theirs is not.
That which proves too much, proves nothing. When Full Preterists offer valid arguments for accepting their approach to a particular text, it is not valid for those who disagree with the approach to the text to say, “so what?” or to simply explain away the meaning. Why does “at hand” mean “soon” with reference to the coming of the Kingdom (Mark 9:1), but not in reference to the coming (parousia) of the Lord (James 5:7-9; I Pet. 4:7)?
Until someone is able to explain the difference between the usage of the same phrase “at hand” in the two verses, then the argument has not been substantiated.
The quest ought to be for truth and not only for that which is deemed theologically acceptable in the current religious environment. The text is the battleground and the place from which truth appears and is confirmed, not opinions, mine or yours.
Respectfully,
Larry Siegle
Unable to answer is not the same as failing to answer. One acknowledges an answer was given but the person finds it insufficient; the other insinuates that no attempt was made.
Thus I acknowledge they have answered. I just don’t agree. I think you are completely missing the point.
The rest of your post was off-topic. Giving an answer you find unsatisfactory is not the same as not answering. BTW, you shouldn’t assume how I interpret those passages; your post belies a gross ignorance of my position.
Before making pronouncements on my alleged inconsistencies, you should at least take the time to learn what I do believe. I am going though my position in painstaking detail in my podcast.
Dee Dee
I have only recently begun to listen to your podcasts (well-produced, BTW), and therefore I apologize for anything that may have been assumed. The “at hand” comment was meant as a general example of how many (not all) treat some texts that use identical terms. You may not be inconsistent in this particular regard, but while attending a theological school I had five Instructors, each of whom applied the above verses to (1) A.D. 70, or (2) the second coming of Christ…This only proves that there remains room for discussion about the application of the verses in their context. The school held (and holds) the Amillennial viewpoint with regard to eschatology.
I enjoyed your most recent podcast and the promo that was cut for it. Despite what some may believe, I do keep an open mind (and an open Bible) when I listen to what others believe and teach.
I am working on a podcast format….wish I had a Mac at this point…Windows is annoying sometimes…
Thanks
Larry Siegle
“Windows is annoying sometimes…” I bet Dee Dee loved that remark
I, personally, find Macs annoying, and quite enjoy using Vista. I’m sure that’ll add fuel to Dee’s view of me as being clinically insane 
Dee Dee (or Roderick or anybody else who can answer this), as someone who believes in Orthodox Preterism but has not been involved in its defense for very long, I’m unfamiliar with the hyperpreterist challenge regarding Daniel 12. How is it alleged to refute our understanding, and what is our defense?
Nevermind, don’t worry about it. Reading the chapter again I think I see where some of the concern might arise.
A LIVE search (yes, it is much better than Goober search) for “Daniel 12″ and “Orthodox Preterism” resulted in this thread:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?s=7c169b5fc5ded7e466f306ba914038cd&t=119828
And Dee Dee actually posted in that thread a link to a post she made on this site at:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=324
So I should be able to find everything I need :). Thanks!
>Why does “at hand” mean “soon” with reference to the coming of the Kingdom (Mark 9:1), but not in reference to the coming (parousia) of the Lord (James 5:7-9; I Pet. 4:7)?<
This is friendly response
The reason you may not have heard an acceptable response is that you may have spoken with an ultradispensationalist. I am not seeking an argument (as the article rightly notes, being familiar with but disagreeing does not mean that we don’t understand the other position).
The UD response would be that Mark, James, Peter and Paul during the Acts Age were expecting a “soon” parousia of the King to set-up his kingdom. Israel is in view in the gospels, Acts and Acts epistles (including Paul’s in which he clearly recognizes an Israel in that Age). So it is no wonder that James and Peter (commissioned only to Israel - Matt 10, Acts 11, Gal 2, etc.) wrote to Jews only (James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1, etc.).
So we would expect those Apostles to the Circumcision and Paul in the Acts age (”to the Jew first”) to be in expectation of the Kingdom (Acts 3, 1 Cor, 1 Thess, etc.). It is only when Israel was set aside (along with the expectation of the parousia) at the end of the Acts period (Acts 28:28) that the age of a different expectation began (not the Rapture, but of the Appearing).
The Acts age was foreseen by the prophets (Gal 3, Rom 15, Acts 26, Acts 28, etc.) yet the Gentile Age of the Body was not known in scripture (Eph 3) until revealed to Paul. The promises to Israel are confined to things known “SINCE the foundation of the world” whereas we live in an age hidden from “BEFORE the foundation of the world.”
Again, you can call all this hogwash (this is a Preterist site and I mean no disrespect)… I just offer up the UD explanation so you will be aware of it. In the end, we look to resurrection as well and we are just as horrified by those who deny it… and we will support any efforts of yours to defend the doctrine (of resurrection) that others try to destroy.
As I said to Larry (who of course I LOVE NOW BECAUSE HE WANTS AN APPLE!!!!!) that is off-topic for this thread.
And for me, they aren’t different so you are barking up the wrong tree. However, there is a qualification I would give to that, which I will be doing on my podcast. That argument doesn’t work with this preterist.
Of course it doesn’t work for a Preterist… but that does not mean that there is no answer to his question. He stated (and perhaps other Preterists rightly ask the same question) that “soon” and “at hand” do not fit a classic, Acts 2, dispensational model. I was just informing him that I agree… but that doesn’t mean that there is no other possibility.
The Preterist and Acts 2 dispensationalist have to answer why Paul, Peter, James and the other apostles recognize Jewish believers as being separate and superior to Gentile believers (if not superior, certainly separate) - Acts 15, Rom 11, etc.
Clearly Acts 15 sets out two sets of rules for believers… one set for Jewish believers and another for Gentile believers (approved by the Holy Spirit). And Paul clearly warns only Gentile believers of being “cut off” in Romans 11.
Again, this not exhaustive, but either the chosen Apostles of God were right in their actions (Acts 11:19 for example) or they were not. I believe they were right for that age.
[...] Why do Hyperpreterists Continue to Misrepresent? [...]