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

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…..