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

On March 10, 2009, I appeared as a Guest on the Irons Sharpens Iron show. The show was placed in the Preterist Podcast feed as Episode 23. Within a few days of my appearance, hyperpreterist Samuel Frost wrote a critique of my appearance. As I will be interacting with this critique in an upcoming podcast and previously gave my listeners the challenge to read it themselves and compare to the actual interview; following is the critique in its entirety. I had previously just linked to it on the SGP site, but since the compound is locked, I am making it available here. One rebuttal to this critique has already been posted here which was met with silence from the hyperpreterist camp.

The following is authored by Hyperpreterist Samuel Frost and entitled “Dee Dee Warren on Iron Sharpens Iron.”

Dee Dee Warren recently wrote an apology to me concerning a couple of things, and I entirely accept them. I accepted the one concerning Whitefield and my role there, although, I guess, I never admitted that I did. Anyway, I accept her apologies. I did not exaggerate my role at Whitefield seminary. I never taught there, and never claimed to have taught there. I simply helped to develop their Hebrew program based of off an already existing program.

Recently, Dee Dee appeared on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Show, which was a fun fest for me.

The show’s host, Chris Arnzen, introduced her as “one of the foremost experts in the United States” – a title she refused to accept – rightly so.

Chris also admits that Preterism is “growing in popularity.” Praise the Lord.

Now, as the program began, Dee Dee relates how the Lord specifically called her to help rescue poor souls caught in this damning heresy. She also mentioned Roderick Edwards and her teaming up with him to eradicate it.

She affirmed herself as a “postmillennialist” and an “orthodox preterist.” This means that “most” of the NT passages relating the “coming” of the Lord are [something is missing here] A.D. 70. Of course, we could have fun right there, because this was NEVER the orthodox opinion of the “fathers”.

Again, she brings up that we are Hymenaeans, and a “cancer” in the Church (but, she says, “David Green has been my friend for several years”. Huh? Paul: “Yea, that Hymenaeus, he’s a cancer and destroys the faith of some in the church, but, he is honest and has been my friend for years.” You can figure that one out.

Now, the meat.

She wants to make the case that Preterism denies the essential aspects of “Christology” by citing the Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicunque). I am puzzled over this. I almost know that Creed by heart. It is basically broken down into 44 propositions. 1-3 I have reservations about:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity…

Now, what is meant by “Catholic faith” is debated, although Athanasius was a Catholic. The Problem is that Athanasius did not write this Creed. It was introduced in full form “toward the close of the eighth century or the beginning of the ninth” (Schaff). It doesn’t take an expert, then, to figure out what the words “Catholic Faith” meant by the eighth century.

The final clause (44) reads, “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.” Does Dee Dee accept this?

Now, aside from the opening and closing damnations, I affirm entirely all 4-39 – the Christological sections. 40-43 reads:

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. I don’t have to point out the obvious to our readers for where we would disagree. Be that as it may, I don’t think Dee Dee endorses the catholicity of this Creed, but I cannot see where she tries to make the case that eschatology effects the Christology of this creed. Strange argument.

Next she moves on to consider other ancient sources, but doesn’t recall any of them except Polycarp. Now, Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna (mid-second century) who, as Irenaeus claimed, had communications with Saint John and with “those who had seen the Lord.” This actually works against Dee Dee, because Polycarp was not an “orthodox preterist” and neither was he a “postmillennialist”! Somehow, Dee Dee must have another standard by which to judge that the Catholic Faith is not able to damn souls who are not Catholic, and why Polycarp, according to Tradition, spoke with John, but wasn’t a postmillennialist or a preterist. What would that standard be by which she picks and chooses where the Creed is right and Polycarp is right, but where they are both wrong, too? Hmmmm. It is interesting to note, too, that Dee Dee claims she has never used the Creeds as an argument against us. But on this show, it’s one of the first things to come up, however feeble it was as an argument.

David Green, my good friend and buddy, and together we are about finished with House Divided, a response to When Shall These Things Be?, is mentioned again, quoting his argument that we must be heretics if the Bible teaches that the resurrection has not yet happened. Of course, this has been pointed out to Dee Dee that Dave was not giving her a proof in a logical form. Ask David Green himself if this is what he meant.

We are then treated to Dee Dee’s personal history and how this horrible doctrine nearly caused her to commit suicide. Now, I honestly do not want to treat this lightly. If a person was in such a state, then, psychologically speaking, there are more issues going on than just “doctrinal matters.” Logically speaking, misericordium (appeal to misery) is an informal fallacy. She knows this, too. I’ll let that one go by the wayside. She knows this, too. I’ll let that one go by the wayside.

Finally, with no phone calls to the program, she labels us as “bullying”, “vocal”, and “aggressive.” We use “unethical tactics” (I have a list of those from their side….but we will see where that goes as far as our behind the scenes talks).

I was waiting for my name to be mentioned. My bet was met. I am the “golden boy” of this group! Wow! A small lad from Indiana is now the “golden boy.” It gets better. I am listed in the top three “leaders”! Wait, wait…there’s more: “Samuel Frost is the most influential.” Put that in your pipe, Jason, and smoke it!

She mentions Virgil Vaduva as a “Brian McClaren” foot kisser (he isn’t) and as anti-Reformed “as you can get” (he isn’t – that’s why I speak at his conferences – if anyone was anti-Reformed it would be Dee Dee, a card carrying Molinist that denies that God knows all contingent events).

She mentioned Don Preston, and Jason, and Mike B, and David Green. Good men. She mentioned how we bait people at the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) conferences. She still doesn’t get that group (co-founded by Gordon Clark). They make you sign a paper affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture and the Trinity. No problems. I am a member. Dee Dee says that we use that to “validate” ourselves, or that ETS “endorses” us. I have spoken there, and I have never ever claimed that ETS “endorses” us. It “allows” us because we break no pledge. Simple. Another case of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

In conclusion, nothing was really said that proved preterism false.

Maybe a couple of Scriptures (Hymenaeus) were mentioned.

Most of it was personal experience (which really counts for nothing, any more than my personal experience with grading papers in Hebrew, being a member of ETS, or the like).

There was the charge that this doctrine “twists the character of people” so that they become “more sneaky.” Not quite sure what that means. Regardless, it’s ad hominem and doesn’t matter.

See ya around….

******

In the original posting, I forgot to include a piece of information that the reader needs. Right after the show started, Samuel emailed the host with a question/comment. Here is the email.