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

I was listening to a radio broadcast from last year and heard the commentator state a philosophy that could be extrapolated to say that we should use the most charitable labels possible when labeling one’s opposition. I am admittedly taking one statement from this commentator in drawing out a general principle; however, this is a principle I hear articulated often, thus, it really doesn’t matter if when examined in great detail the particular teacher would not agree in total with that which I have inferred from his program since there are, in fact, others who certainly do. And, in brief, likely to the great suprise of some, I agree with that statement. At first blush, this could be difficult to believe in light of the many-varied labels and terms of that I use for hyperpreterism, including the term hyperpreterism itself. So, I will explicate. Selecting one’s terminology is not simplistic, it must take into consideration the multiple contexts, subjects, and background of the discussion. For example, something which might be considered “charitable” in one context would be completely uncharitable in another.

When considering charitableness, one cannot only take into consideration the object that is being labeled, in this case hyperpreterism. As Dan Trotter once quoted his wife as stating, this isn’t about any particular hyperpreterist that she hates; it is about the orthodox that she loves. Therefore, in considering the subject matter being defended, that being the very heart of the historic faith itself, it is not charitable to the faith or the orthodox to smother heresy in terms which do not mark it out for the deviance that it is. In that the light, “hyperpreterism” serves its function as a phrase extraordinarily well. There are certainly much harsher, and just as accurate, terminology to be used, such as hymenaeanism. In fact, I do use that terminology from time to time, but, even though the Bible does have some completely harsh words for false doctrines and those who spread them, those harsh words are not on every page of the Bible, nor are they in every passage dealing with false teaching, and therefore our words should not be inordinately weighted in that direction either. The Bible uses them for polemical effect, and that is the effect to which we should use them.

The above deals with the issue in a public writing contexts. However if there are other contacts in which I have eschewed the use of even the word hyperpreterism and used in fact phraseology that I normally would not use such as “full preterism.” Now why in the world would I do that? There have been instances when I have been in private communications with a hyperpreterist that is open to abandon their heresy who has communicated to me that they have a severe problem in our “face to face” communications with that term. I am desiring to have a personal dialogue with this person. There is no other audience but us, and that person is already well aware of my views. It serves no purpose that point with a person who is willing to reconsider their heretical theology to use a language which will only serve that point to inflame and have no other use as there is no other person that is involved in the correspondence - it is just us two.

In our culture today we tend to have a saccharine and smarmy view of tolerance, charity, and love. It is not loving to pretend, either through inaction, ambivalence, or inaccurate labeling that a view isn’t the dangerous heresy that it is. Persons examining and hearing of this view need to go into it the get-go with their eyes wide open. They need to understand, and it is incumbent upon us to tell them, that if they embrace this view, they have abandoned the historic faith. This is not to discourage people from examining the view. In fact, I encourage mature Christians to examine all views, not just hyperpreterism, but the claims of the cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, the Christadelphians, and what ever other cult they may run into. The real thing isn’t threatened by a counterfeit, and is incumbent upon each believer to have an examined faith. However, an examined faith, and an informed decision, require having the fact out in the open. While some hyperpreterist may disagree, and this is a hallmark of cultic thinking, a factor if you’re in evaluating views is in fact the fact that it is the denial of basic and core Christian doctrine that has been held unanimously by the Church for two millennia. A potential convert has to come to grips with the arrogance or potential arrogance that they think that they and a relatively recent band of vocal theological deviants have figured out something that has escaped the Church in toto for all of this time, the same Church which was promised to be led by the Spirit which apparently has not even grasp the back contours of Christian eschatology. That in fact does take a whole lot of chutzpah, and the potential convert needs to face that directly and up front.

Another factor in considering charity and terminology is the posture of the deviant teaching being addressed. I find no need to point out continually that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians in the way that historic Trinitarians would consider Christianity. Why? Because the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t deny that, they’re quite open that the rest of the so-called church, as far as they are concerned, are idolatrous apostates. This was true (the thought that the rest of the church was apostate), as well, up until relatively recent times, for the Mormons. Now, it has become necessary to point out their heretical nature (doctrine only) in multiple fashions and times because they have to be great public relations push to be considered just another Christian denomination. That is very similar to the philosophy behind the hyperpreterist push. They frame the debate as one which must be assumed from the outset to be one between various acceptable Christian views. It is not, and thus, it is necessary in multiple fashions and times to point this out until they become much more be theologically honest in doing so.

Charity begins at home. Do you love the orthodox? Do you love the historic faith? Do you believe that the Spirit has led the Church so that she has understood the basic underpinnings of the Gospel? Then your language should reflect this, and your language should send up the red flags with regards to this new-yet-old-comer (it is amazing how many old heresies are reflected in this new one). In so doing, you should not be harsher than the context demands, but neither should you falter from saying what needs to be said. This is not loving to the orthodox, nor ultimately loving to the hyperpreterist in giving them a false sense of Christian inclusion.