Reducing The Resurrection: Hyperpreterist Logic in Action
Filed Under (Roderick's Posts, cults/cultic, exegesis, hermeneutics, hyperpreterism, resurrection, terminology) by Roderick_E on 13-05-2009
Tagged Under : bad theology, sam frost, Samuel Frost
We often talk about how “reductionist” hyperpreterists can be. What we mean by this is that they tend to minimize majors or reduce things by absurdities. We have seen how they do this with things like Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus about the need to be “born again”. They will often say this discussion was only concerning the need for the Old Covenant people to be “reborn” in the the New Covenant people. It supposedly has nothing to do with individuals needs today.
Hyperpreterists are probably the most reductionist when it comes to the issue of the resurrection. This is evident especially in how they will claim the resurrection of the believers happened in or around AD70 & only in a spiritualized sense YET they will quote John 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
So, on one hand they want to limit the resurrection to the first-century & on the other hand they cite this verse & don’t seem to understand that Jesus said this BEFORE AD70. And yet on the other hand (yes, 3 handed-”logic” of hyperpreterism), hyperpreterists want to deny the UNIFIED historic Christian position that the resurrection of the believers is yet future. Reductionist indeed!
This reductionist mentality on the resurrection is perhaps best displayed by hyperpreterist “leader” Samuel Frost who recently says on a May 10th 2009 podcast that:
“If you want to know the Resurrection of Christ. Can you get up the next day? Yes I can. Why? Because God loves me. Well BINGO! You just tackled [hyper] Preterism. Because that’s really all that I’m saying. Can you get up tomorrow? Why? Because of the grace of God. Then you have been raised from the dead. I mean that’s it.” (Hyperpreterist “leader”, Sam Frost reducing the resurrection — listen to the 15 second audio)
There are so many flaws in this statement, it is difficult to decide where to begin. Besides even reducing his own hyperpreterist contention that the resurrection of the believers happened in the first-century, Frost may as well come up & endorse universalism. If being raised from the dead, simply means a person gets up tommorrow then, BY THIS ‘LOGIC’ EVERY LIVING PERSON HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD — WELCOME TO UNIVERSALISM. This reductionist ‘logic” may lead other reductionists (who aren’t even hyperpreterists) to give Frost a hearty “amen” & then that person is on their way to joining the hyperpreterist cult.
Hyperpreterism reduces almost everything in this manner, whether it be how they view the principle of Sola Scriptura or how they view God’s sovereignty in leading the Church…or rather not leading the Church since hyperpreterism MUST start with believing 2000 years of Christian interpretation has been grossly in error.
So, next time you read some long & convoluted hyperpreterist explanation of the resurrection — how it was in the first-century yet trying to use John 5:11 to support a spiritual resurrection — remember Frost’s little explanation here, after all Frost is often considered the “scholar” of the hyperpreterist movement & if this is the reasoning from their champion, then there isn’t much need to go any futher with the lessors.
Great article, Rod. I do believe “reductionism” is the proper word.
To equate resurrection with waking up is Biblical (see Psalm 17: 15), but yet falsely applied by the Hyper-Preterists.
I would only ask Sam if he PHYSICALLY rolls out of bed each morning, or only does so spiritually.
I wonder what would happen if we decided to go to work spiritually each day! That would be reductionism at its worst (or best, depending on your outlook).
Brian
[...] Reducing The Resurrection: Hyperpreterist Logic in Action [...]
Roderick:
Very interesting! In logic, ‘Reductio ad absurdum’ (reducing a complex issue by oversimplification to the absurd) is the Latin name for this type of fallacy you are referring. Was the meaning was lost in transmission? Perhaps the thesis was supposed to say; ‘Sleep’ is likened unto ‘death,’ and to ‘awaken’ is likened unto the ‘resurrection.’ Nevertheless, the problem remains that the ‘type’ of death and resurrection is not defined by the illustration. As Dr. Gordon Clark use to say; “that is the problem with illustrations, they only illustrate, they do not prove anything.” MillennialSaint was right on target; was this sleep spiritual or physical? Was the awakening spiritual or physical? That is what must first be determined prior to using an illustration (however, I do not have the full interview to make such a determination). If that was not properly established and rationally proven (biblically speaking, which it cannot be), it simply is, as you have rightly pointed out, a reductionism.
However, consider this, what if you are dreaming that you are asleep and then awaken, only to still be asleep and then awaken. Which death and resurrection are being illustrated? Further, if both are non-physical, how do we discern the difference? How would you know that you are ‘truly’ awake or asleep? Does not this line of reasoning go on ad infinitum? Perhaps this is just a bad dream and we will all wake up!
Yet, to make this exciting, from a philosophical point of view, could not one correctly argue for their ontological existence by positing the following thesis: ‘I awake, therefore I am!’ or, there non-existence by; ‘I sleep, therefore I am not!’ However, some bright philosophical student will quickly point out that the predicate is not derivable from the subject. True, but this argument is more intellectually stimulating than any illustration. That is not to say illustrations are not good and stimulating, they are when used properly. I still like the bagworm illustration!