Open Letter to Members of Theology Debate
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Administrator on 28-09-2009
Print This Post
Regarding your new policy and specifically the link http://preteristdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/here-a-name-there-a-name
When Christians use the term, Hyperpreterism to describe the heresy that believes Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century, we do so because it is an etymologically accurate term since hyper simply means to go beyond the original intent and scope (see definition). It is not a derogatory term. YET, when when hyperpreterists use the terms, “hyper-creedalist” and “hyper-futurist” to describe Christians it makes no sense — since no Christian is going “beyond” the creeds and quite frankly since there really is no such thing as “futurism”. (All Christians believe at least some N.T. prophecy is fulfilled in the past — even guys like Tim LaHaye & Hal Lindsey). So, hyperpreterists use those labels more like a school-yard tactic of senseless name calling. (”na-na, gottcha back!”) It is immature.
As you noticed, your attempt to fix what you thought was mutual offense, is just getting worse. Now the hyperpreterists are taking offense at being linked to Hymenaeus and they certainly will take offense at being called Heterodox Preterists (the term you suggest). The REAL issue is that hyperpreterists want to be seen to be within the scope of historic Christianity when they clearly are not. Anything that shines light on that fact will be offensive to hyperpreterists. This is the reason they work so hard at giving themselves respectable, yet misleading names like, “Biblical Preterists”. They don’t want people to realize they are nothing like historic Christianity.
I appreciate your effort but until you realize the REAL goal of hyperpreterism, which is to supplant historic Christianity and replace it with a redefined “new kind of Christianity”, then it doesn’t matter what you do to try to make peace with hyperpreterism, it is still as Dr. Kenneth Talbot pointed out, a DIFFERENT GOSPEL which can’t have concord with the Gospel of Christ. Hyperpreterism ISN’T Christian….and I’m not talking about their salvation, since that is between them and God, however they aren’t part of the community of saints while they are part of a different gospel. You can’t make peace with something that is at conflict with God and the people of God.
This post is beyond relevant, as I just left TD this morning. The reason is that I can’t say use any terminology without “offending” people. “Hyper-Preterism” was banned yesterday, and so I started using the new term “Hymenean Preterism” (which I plan to use from now on). Then that gets banned this morning. OK, enough is enough. I resign.
As I told Sharon, there are no hard feelings. And there aren’t! However, I made sure I gave the site a good kick in the butt before I left by deleting all my content. That’s really what it needs now, so that people wake up and see that this is spiritual warfare we’re engaged in, and not a diplomatic tea-party.
Peace & Health,
Brian
Brian, thank you for your bold move. We certainly want to support people and sites making a stand against heresy and when Sharon, Minna, and Vince first announced their departure from the hyperpreterist movement, we all tried to support them without smothering them. I had a concern that they didn’t really repudiate their former beliefs — I mean, if it really is a “different Gospel”, then those holding to it are NOT our “brothers and sisters in Christ” (I’m not talking about their salvation, that is between God and them). I’m not going to have discussions with them as if they were.
TD was being over-ran by hyperpreterists. It is like a microcosm of what happens to churches if they allow hyperpreterists to remain within the congregation as if they are “brothers and sisters in Christ”. It is a microcosm of what is happening when we allow hyperpreterism to represent itself as valid within broader Christianity. Hyperpreterism has a supplanting effect where it eventually overtakes orthodoxy — I think Paul called it a gangrenous effect.
Again, I praise God that you sent this message and I pray that Sharon and the CHRISTIAN moderators over on TD hear it loud and clear.
As you said, we’re not supposed to be having a diplomatic tea-party with hyperpreterism. It is not like we haven’t been in spiritual warfare for perhaps the last 25 years with this heresy — it seems the new “former-hyperprets” thought they could take a different tactic and now they are seeing that hyperpreterists can’t be reasoned with since as even hyperpreterists say, they are operating from a DIFFERENT PARADIGM, which ISN’T Christian.
I commend the new “former-hyperpreterists” for trying a different tactic, but now it’s time for them to join the rest of us who have been fighting the fight against this error. Amen???
P.S. To ALL former-hyperprets — We’re not your enemy.
Rod,
Hi there. I’ve been reading several things here at Pret. Blog and see my name referred to a fair amount (which is fine by the way…). I wonder if you could do me a favor? Would you go ahead and define exactly what is a a “Hyper-Pretetrist” for me so I can make some comments. Please allow the definition to reflect the “authoritative” view from the perspective of those on this site so there is no misunderstanding on my part.
I appreciate it.
Dr. B…
Hello Kelly, I’ve seen you describe yourself as not being a “full preterist”, and in the past I have hoped to see you renounce hyperpreterism but since that time I’ve seen you write many things that still place you within the movement.
Here are the 4 main beliefs of hyperpreterism:
A hyperpreterist need not believe ALL 4 points consistently to be considered a hyperpreterist, but they typically believe at least the 1st point and often the 4th.
For more details, see this link: http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2547
I hope this is helpful.
I agree with you that they believe all 4 things.I almost became a hyperpreterist by reading literature by Ward Fendley,Don Preston,David Green and others.I thought these guys had discovered something that every other theologian have over looked ,sort of the those people who promote those get rich quick schemes saying that they found the secret to wealth that everybody else overlooked.That was how I viewed that theology back in 1998,then I discovered books and articles by Kenneth Gentry,Jack Van Deveter,Gary Demar,James Jordan,Gary North,and others and I read their stuff attacking the Hyperterist movement with articles.I came close to being a hyperterist.As Maxwell Smart will say”Missed it by that much”.
I am more encouraged than ever to continue using Hymenaeanism.
” . . . when hyperpreterists use the [term] ‘hyper-creedalist’ . . . to describe Christians it makes no sense — since no Christian is going ‘beyond’ the creeds . . . ”
A “hyper-creedalist” would be someone who goes beyond being a normal creedalist; one who is a creedalist to the extreme. An example of a “creedal extremist” (”hyper-creedalist”) would be someone who assumes a creedal tenet to be scriptural in the absence of scriptural proof and then uses that extra-scriptural, creedal assumption to condemn professing believers.
Dave
Roderick,
Thank you for responding to me. As you may or may not know, I have been working within the Preterist movement (all kinds of preterist thought) for many years now. I have done so with an eye towards keeping the movement on a solid biblical/ theological track. As a Reformed pastor who subscrbes to the WCF (with some exceptions of course- I am not a strict subscriptionist), I maintain a rather well known Reformed doctrinal standard for myself and the members of Messiah Reformed Church. This includes the reformed hermeneutic as it is expressed in reformed theological works (classic and modern), and as such, I believe that there exists a greater and wider diversity between myself and those who claim some sort of “reformed” position in the wider full preterist circles.
I asked you for a working definition as you understand it (re:Hyper-Preterism, which I also see as “full” preterism), in an attempt to clarify some of these things for those who are unsure as to where it is that i stand in all of this. I’ll make my responses brief while following the four points of “Hyperpreterism” that you gave me here. What i am willing to share with you here is for clarification concerning myself and is not something i am seeking to make a defense for here. I’m not looking for anyone here to agree or to disagree with me.
BASIC HYPERPRETERIST BELIEFS
1. Belief that Jesus came back once and for all in the first-century
Dr. B… I believe that all of the NT scriptures that teach the second coming or parousia of Christ, pointed to and were fulfilled by the destruction of the temple in AD 70. That being said, it has always been my belief that when this event occured, it occured not within the realm of created linear time, but outside of it. I believe the destruction of the temple was the earthly time-marker that this event had transpired. But i believe Christ returned within the spiritual realm and has been here ruling and reigning ever since. When a person dies post AD 70, they go to that exact event outside of earthly linear time, or God’s eternal “now” as it were. And so we all have /will (in our futures), experience the event of the parousia together. I hold to the experience of this event as a future event.
2. Belief that the resurrection of the believers happened in the first-century
Dr. B… Following the line of thought in my above explanation, I believe that every believer that dies post AD 70, immediately is resurrected (based upon AD 70), and receives their Christ-like individual bodies out of heaven (2 Cor. 5:1-2, Phil. 3:21, etc). So, as with the experience of the parousia as being in our futures (within the perameters as I have stated them), so too our experience of receiving our resurrection bodies is in fact in all of our futures. Btw, none of what i am presenting here is anything knew. It is all well documented in my books, CD’s and internet studies. This teaching as I am encapsulating here, is something i have been holding to for many, many years.
3. Belief that the judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the first-century
Dr. B…Same answer here as above. No one will miss their judgment, either the righteous or the wicked.
4. Belief that there will be no culmination/conclusion of the physical planet (no end of sin, justice)
Dr. B…Back in 2004, one of my books was published called “The End of Sin.” In that, I present the biblical and theological teaching that sin in all of it’s expressions, will in fact terminate and will no longer exist on this planet. The details as to how this is being accomplished are in that book.
My desire in presenting all this is not to instigate any type of quarrel. Nor do i desire to get into any kind of back and forth here on this venue, nor necessarily anywhere else. But I am giving it now and here as an attempt to let others know that much of the disagreements that i have with various “names” within the full preterist movement (Hyper included), is based upon not only the responses I have given to your 4 points here, but in a larger context where proper biblical hermeneutics are seen as some sort of an “option” to be used, twisted or disgarded almost at will. This problem within preterism has surfaced recently into the creation (or result) of a new procedure of defining justification by faith. For many years I have tried to work from “within” in order to safeguard against where some factions within this movement are now headed. Some here on this site who have been engaging them, I believe, are right to do so. I believe i have unmasked some of the problems along with those within who have formally come out and admitted that FP or HP cannot co-exist within reformed theology. This has been so direct and prevelent as of late, that there should be no squirming away from it by them.
I have come to the conclusion that it is correct at this juncture, to continue to draw the line as to what is and is not tolerable within the FP camp. I see no working definable difference between hyper and full preteism. The things I have stated here as to “problems” within the movement, are just the beginning. Cult-like tendencies of theological manipulation have begun to evidence themselves more and more from within. Consequently, I am more and more delimited as to the actual affiliations i can maintain in the formal sense.
Dr. B…
Thank you Kelly for your explanation. It would seem you hold a fusion of idealism, historicism, amil & postmil. I would still ask if you see Jesus as coming back in any physical, manifesting sense in the future. Whether you believe there will be a single future event of resurrection of believers, whether there will be a single future judgment once and for all — with no more judgment afterward, whether you believe not in some progressive end of sin, but a final and definitive end of sin. Because that is how Christianity has been historically advocated for 2000 years.
HOWEVER, I am pleased to see you pointing out that the “movement” has become increasingly less “conservative”. This is really what happened to me as well. As you may know, I and others spent many years fighting the liberalizing elements within the movement — universalism, Emergentism and such. At first, I thought, perhaps as you, that if we could just pare away the kooky elements of the movement, we could then present it as a respectable option. But the more and more I tried the more I realized that in reality, the liberal element WAS the consistent form of the movement.
Sam Frost and the pseudo-conservatives have for a long time been trying to represent themselves as the “scholarly”, respectable faction of the movement; but with Sam’s recent admission that a person CAN’T be “truly Reformed” and a “full preterist” I guess even that has gone out the window. With the exposed effects that hyperpreterism has not just on eschatology but soteriology, ecclesiology and every other “ology”, it should be acting like the smoke to the yet unseen fire. (unseen to those still in the movement)
With the hyperpreterists telling us justification and sanctification are instantaneous, and telling us to believe in a future resurrection means we’re not yet saved; hyperpreterism can no longer pretend their belief is a minor “tweak”.
I know you have invested many years into the movement Kelly. Much time, much friendship, much of your life. But I also believe God is Sovereign. The ex-Mormon who goes on to lead people out of Mormonism because God sent him into a pit, sold him off into slavery, cast him into prison and then lifted him to a place to save many alive — what men mean for evil, God means for good.
I ask you to please at least be open to understanding that despite how we’re often depicted by hyperpreterists we ex-hyperpreterists don’t “hate” anyone. We don’t wish people to “go to hell”. Yes, we do oppose error, even more so passionately since we were for a time duped by it. We even more oppose those Cult-like “leaders” within the movement who are really the ones carrying out Romans 16:17-18, causing division by teaching contrary doctrines and masking it as some sort of syncretic “Just Jesusism”.
What you have described above is exactly the phase ALL of us former-hyperpreterist went through — first seeing the corruption all around, but wanting to do all we could to retain some sense of “orthodoxy” within the movement — eventually we began to see, it is the nature of heresy to continue to degrade.
I hope you don’t take offense that I ask the readers to please pray for you. It was with much prayer and fasting by people I didn’t even know, people I might have considered “enemies” while I was in the movement that eventually brought me out of that “cult-like tendency”.
God help us all,
Roderick
Hi Dr. Birks,
What you have identified is what I witnessed also. It served to bring me out.
I don’t hate anyone there, nor do I question their salvation but I do know their system is flawed and trying to reason with them falls on deaf ears.
I will keep you in my prayers also.
You are welcome to contact me privately. I believe you have my email address. Sin is one of the topics I’m going to be taking on here shortly and I do have another way of presenting it that may be of interest to you. It was a real eye opener for me.
Dorothy
I also agree with this post. When I first read the “new rules” change at the site I was very disappointed but not all together surprised. I think that was when I realized there is really no way to discuss with hyperpreterists. We simply do not speak the same language…
Dr. Birks,
Welcome, I enjoyed your engagement with Mr. Frost, too bad it wasn’t allowed to proceed to the end.
I was going to leave a messege to the owners of the Preterist Debate site…but to be honest I do not think it would matter. So I simply left. I really have nothing more to say and I cannot understand this move that they made.
Sharon reads here, so I think posting in this thread serves the same purpose. I know Sharon has good intentions, but they are expressing themselves in a very misguided way. You can’t coddle heresy. Hyperpreterists will over-run any site that they are given such control over.
I agree with Dee Dee. Once you let Hymenean Preterists set the definitions, you allow them to control the discussion. I personally believe that barring the term “Hyper-Preterism” was a bad idea to begin with. However, Sharon doubtless had her reasons why she excluded the term. But if I can’t even use the theologically descriptive phrase “Hymenean Preterism,” then the discussion is at a stalemate. I refuse to call them “Full Preterists,” because that is their own terminology which they use to garner validity. Orthodox Christians must never allow heretics to control the theological parameters. At Michael Patton’s site, nobody who isn’t a ‘historic Christian’ is allowed to write blog posts. Their activities are confined to the forums alone. This is wise administrative policy, which keeps the discussion under control.
Like I told Sharon, it was a catch-22 situation at TD. Whatever I said would have offended them, because I think their doctrine of the resurrection is heretical. As much as I may respect them as brothers of the human family (yes, even you, Dr. Birks!), I have zero respect for H.P.’s within the context of Christian faith. And so to gear the whole dialogue toward respectful discussion on that level is a waste of time.
During my 2-3 months at TD, I feel I maintained a respectful tone — even toward those whom I disagreed with. I don’t recall ever breaking the rules once (whereas the Hymean Preterists break them on a daily basis). This is not to sound my own praises, but merely to point out that I did everything possible to honor Sharon’s administrative policies. When those policies began barring frank discussion and the fair use of descriptive terminology, it was time for me to leave.
Peace & Health,
Brian
I agree Dee Dee…and this is not meant to be a swipe at anyone. Like I said, I could have offered my 2 cents but I really am growing frustrated at the whole issue and have other things to do than to “coddle” heresy.
It really seems that these guys are a “one-trick pony” and if that is how they want to spend their time then so be it. However, to make a “rule” that does not allow their opponents to call their theological system what it actually is (hyper-preterism) only demonstrates to me that there is some gross ignorance of the facts of the terms used and why they are used in that way. The only reason I am a “partial-preterist” is because the hyper-preterists have hi-jacked the term “preterist” and made it say something it never said until they came along. In reality, however, they are “hyper” preterists which is to say they go BEYOND the scope of historical preterist thought. If they want to see it as a slam and get their dander up over it then perhaps they need to re-think the use of the terms. When I see a scarecrow standing in the cornfield I do not call it a “person” regardless of how the crows might feel about the scarecrow. It is a scarecrow after all. HEH.
Brian,
I agree with you 100 percent. I also joined in the hopes that real dialog could happen (what was I thinking!!??). It really is not possible. We are not even talking about the same thing anymore and when terms are not used in their precise manner then what is the point? As I stated above, the term “hyper-preterist” is a defining term for what they hold to. It simply means to “go beyond something” and it seems to me that the hyper-preterists who really want to be “genuine” in their approach to any discussion of this kind ought to stand up and say that. Again, it is not meant to be a slam. It is meant to define a position. I hardly get upset when an Arminian calls me a Calvinist. That is what I am . It is really no big deal to me. It is a term that is used to ascertian quickly where a person is on any given theological position.
Anyhow, enough said on this I think. Discussion is not possible because terms have no real meaning.
Brian I seen many flagrant violations of the “rules” by several of the hyperprets on that site, especially by Sam Frost and yet the “rules” don’t seem to be enforced as laid out. That alone is wrong.
Well apparently my “enough said” was not enough…
Hmmm…does anyone else see a problem here?
Brain,
That is exactly what the issue has become, who can control the discussion.
Dorothy,
I would be very much interested in hearing your view as to the erradication of sin.
Dr. B…
birks10@hotmail.com
Roderick,
Like I said originally, i’m not really interested in giving further definition as to what i believe concerning the parousia, resurrection, etc. You have asked me pointed questions, but I think i have answered them in my original explanations.
Feel free to contact me privately on these if you would like.
Dr. B…
birks10@hotmail.com
Thanks again Kelly, the questions were more rhetorical in nature. Please ponder them.
Sharon from TD has made her clearest statement on Hyper-preterism to date. When Sharon first renounced hyper-preterism, many of us were waiting to see if she’d actually repudiate it. There is a big difference between renouncing something and also repudiating it. It is like a drug addict that comes clean but will not say addiction is bad. To really make the change a person MUST renounce and repudiate. P.S. Repudiate doesn’t equal “be hateful toward”, lest some hyper-preterist try to paint it that way.
Anyhow, I praise God for Sharon latest statement, here it is:
Despite Sharon perception that she was “completely clueless”, no one thinks that — just that we wanted to see her repudiate her former…”addiction”, as we have. I believe she has now done so. My only other suggestion would be for her to NOT call hyper-preterists “brothers in Christ” — since if as she say, they are advocating a “different Gospel”, they certainly aren’t in the Christian Gospel’s “brotherhood”.
God bless and keep you Sharon!!!!!