Correcting Senseless and Baseless Accusations Against Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Filed Under (dee dee's posts) by dee dee on 06-12-2009
Tagged Under : Kenneth Talbot
Roderick Edwards has recently made the claim that Dr. Talbot does not and has not clearly taken the position that hyperpreterism is heretical and outside of historic Christianity. That is false. Roderick has taken the unfortunate position of instigating a campaign of slander against an elder. He has spit in the fact of kindness and twisted that as “proof” that Dr. Talbot “buys” people because he offered me a scholarship. Nevermind the implied insult that I can be bought or that my work doesn’t deserve a scholarship. Here are the facts: yes I am currently a student at WTS; however, that at this time is simply a name on paper. Due to my life circumstances, I have done very little in the way of coursework, and absolutely nothing that has been submitted. If I dropped out tomorrow my opinion and respect for Dr. Talbot would not change. As to Roderick’s accusation that Dr. Talbot is synthesizing hyperpreterism and orthodoxy, that is also flat-out false. The eschatological position that Dr. Talbot holds is nearly precisely the same position that I have held for about four years now and have expressed on this blog numerous times. The only proof that Roderick has is that Dr. Talbot has coined a name for his view to distinguish it from the views of others. So what? The term “orthodox preterism” is also not a time-tested term, yet I have used it for years as an ice-breaker to make sure that people do not confuse me with hyperpreterists. There are differences within orthodox preterism. I do not hold the same views as Gary DeMar for example, yet we both are within the umbrella of orthodox preterism. Coining a term to show the difference does not a new view or heresy make.
Roderick you need to repent of your slander. You have absolutely no proof but slurs and inuendo. I don’t know what has gotten into you, but it isn’t godly.
I agree Kenneth Gentry and Gary Demar are both are Christian Reconstructionist but they hold differnt opinions on Matthew 24.That doesn’t mean that they are not Christian Reconstructionist,so Rodericks pointed is invalid.
I agree Mike. I sometimes call myself a Neo-PostMill to distinguish myself from the Puritan view or classic Post-Mill view. A “name” isn’t magical. Roderick talks about Frost pandering names (which he does for certain), but Roderick is doing the same thing in his piece: pitting Gentry and Mathison against Dr. Talbot which is ridiculous. From what I can tell, Dr. Talbot and Mathison hold nearly identical views on eschatology (which is the same view that I hold). I would suspect that Dr. Gentry would be very close to the same view as well. We are markedly different than Gary DeMar (I am using him as an example as he is the most prominent popularizer of preterism right now). Plus the phrase “realized preterism” isn’t all that different from a phrase that has been around for a long time, though it has been co-opted by hyperpreterists. But for quite a long time “realized eschatology” was an orthodox view which was also known as “inaugurated eschatology.”
One has to be very circumspect against bringing a false charge against an elder. Supposedly I am “proof” that Dr. Talbot buys people which is just so laughable. When Dr. Talbot offered me the scholarship, it isn’t as if I lived on the streets. I make a decent living, and certainly back then when I was still living with my husband we were very comfortable. I would hope that to be “bought off” it would take more than something I could have feasibly paid for myself. Roderick forgets that I was already on the way to seminary prior to starting TheologyWeb without have a scholarship. I was simply going to pay for it. Then TheologyWeb was birthed, and I felt God was leading me in a different direction.
Somehow because I have a scholarship AND I happen to think Roderick is wrong must mean I have been “bought off” because it is just inconceivable that anyone could really believe Roderick is wrong. That is mind-boggling.
And Phil “bought off” by a moderator position? Come on! Phil had his own very popular blog. He isn’t some little kid that would get all giddy over being given a moderator role. I don’t know whether Roderick has ever been a moderator, but seriously, it isn’t a big deal. Particularly at a small forum like Sharon’s (that is not meant to belittle Sharon’s work, small isn’t bad–it just isn’t so glamourous that one would be “bought off” by such a position). I KNOW what it is like to be a moderator at a LARGE forum, and even that isn’t anything that would buy anyone off. TheologyWeb gets millions of hits a month and nearly 20K members, and the moderators get much more abuse than glory. I bet sometimes they feel like they should get paid, not like they are getting “bought off” just for the position. What are we, in eighth grade or something?
I just saw this comment of Rod’s
Rod, when a guy is right, a guy is right. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to suggest otherwise. Sam, Jason, Larry all understand that I oppose them on other issues, but the fact is they are fighting a very worthy cause pointing out what is the standard of truth by which all truth is to be measured. Jason’s blog on pointing out the false paradigm of the BCS was spot on, save one faux pas, which I pointed out.
Rob, thank you for you kind comments, but I don’t think pointing out when men are defending Biblical truth is stifling anything.
I won’t be writing anymore on the subject, you know where I stand. But fair is fair, and Sam, Jason, Larry and Michael Bennett have been spot on in waging war with the theistic evolutionists of “BCS” for both what the standard of truth is, and how we are to interact with that standard.
Thanks for the post Dee Dee. I’m right by your side on this. Dr. Talbot does not ‘compromise’ his Reformed belief’s. Roderick needs to repent of this accusation against Dr. Talbot because it is baseless and unsubstantiated.
Blessings,
Sharon
The same thing is true with John McArthur.I agree with him in the area by that you are saved by grace in faith through Jesus,but I disagree with his view on the end times.That does not make me a Premillennialist.Just because someone has the same Preterist view on Matthew 24 does Make that person a Hyperterist.That is a very invalid quote.