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

Dave, the Salvation Army does not teach the cessation of the Lord’s Supper, so at very least, half your claim is false. You should actually write a retraction at this point. Failing this, you could produce some salvation army material that explains when the Lord’s Supper ceased. You should also check before making such comments in public.

(Please bear in mind that an organisation not practicing the Lord’s Supper is not the same as that organisation claiming that the Lord’s Supper has ceased. Our local rugby club does not practice the Lord’s Supper, but they do not teach that it has ceased).

I confess to not knowing about the quakers other than that they are thought of as a bit strange.

And my disclaimer is absolutely meaningful. I am referring to Christianity as an historical movement. My point was not about the truth of hyperpreterist teaching about the Lord’s Supper. My point only concerned whether or not that teaching belongs to the historical thing called Christianity. I worded my statement in such a way as to allow the hyperpreterist to still say “but we’re right! Christianity is wrong!”

“Dave, the Salvation Army does not teach the cessation of the Lord’s Supper. . . . ”

The Salvation Army teaches that Christ never meant for the Lord’s Supper to be practiced by all Christians of all time, but that He only meant it to be observed in His generation (like His command to wash each other’s feet in John 13:14). Hence, they believe it ceased in the first century. From the Salvation Army website:

“None of [the New Testament references to the sacraments] showed any intention by Jesus that they (or any other practice) should have become fixed ceremonies. . . . [T]he belief of many Christians that the use of the sacrament of communion was commanded by Christ as essential for all Christians for all time, can be no more than an assumption.”

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:LAduzhGESv0J:www1.salvationarmy.org.uk/uki%255Cwww_uki.nsf/txt-vw-sublinks/C28E39B2CA06E8F98025708A003D9FAC%3FopenDocument

See also “The Sacraments and the Bible” by Captain Phil Layton, available at Amazon.com.

“I confess to not knowing about the quakers other than that they are thought of as a bit strange.

Strange or not, they are orthodox Christians and they teach that the Lord’s Supper ceased in the same way that the Salvation Army does. (See The Doctrine and Principles of the People Called Quakers, Explained and Vindicated,” by Thomas Willis, page 54ff.)

This fulfills the requirements of your “innocuous question.”

And my disclaimer is absolutely meaningful. I am referring to Christianity as an historical movement. My point was not about the truth of hyperpreterist teaching about the Lord’s Supper. My point only concerned whether or not that teaching belongs to the historical thing called Christianity. I worded my statement in such a way as to allow the hyperpreterist to still say “but we’re right! Christianity is wrong!”

So you’re admitting that it’s possible for “the historical thing called Christianity” to be wrong and a relative handful of individuals to be right?

Dave

Dave, I am well aware that the Salvation Army does not consider that Jesus meant for the Last Supper to become a “Lord’s Supper” for all Christians to participate in until Christ returns.

Surely on reflection you ought to have realised that this falsifies your claim that they actually teach that the institution of the Lord’s Supper has ceased at all (much less that it ceased because Christ returned).

Do you have an example of any Salvation army author teaching that the Lord’s Supper was a binding institution but that the institution has, as you put it, “ceased”?

To repeat for emphasis: You cannot use an example of someone saying that there there never even existed such a binding institution as the Lord’s Supper to begin with. I was absolutely clear that I am talking about Christians who teach that this institution (i.e. a real one) has ceased.

So the Salvation Army is not an example you may use. I was prepared to simply grant that your Quaker example was accurate, but given the fundamental inaccuracy of your appeal to the Salvation Army, I will now need to check this for myself, since I’m not in a position to simply trust your claim, as well as your assurance that there’s no question as to the Quakers’ orthodoxy (because as I said, I don’t currently know much about them).

You say: So you’re admitting that it’s possible for “the historical thing called Christianity” to be wrong and a relative handful of individuals to be right?

No. I am allowing for the possibility that some hyperpreterists might be are honest enough to - while believing that they are correct - admit that they are not Christians in the historical sense. Nothing here implies that I think they might be correct. You suggestion that I meant anything else is strange.

Glenn,

The Salvation Army and the Quakers both believe that the Lord’s Supper was never meant to be “for all Christians for all time” (as quoted in the Salvation Army document I linked for you). Not sure how else to interpret that than that the Lord’s Supper was meant for Christ’s contemporaries and not for all believers throughout the centuries. As the following Salvation Army video states, the Lord’s Supper had relevance to the first-century, “Jewish culture, Jewish Messiah, Jewish Apostles, Jewish feast.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TmeZWPwN8w (1:15 - 1:30)

The salient fact: According to the Salvation Army and the Quakers, the Lord’s Supper was meant for “back then” and not for “today.” Whatever other issues there are, that is the common ground between those two orthodox, Protestant denominations and “hyper-preterists.”

I asked: “So you’re admitting that it’s possible for ‘the historical thing called Christianity’ to be wrong and a relative handful of individuals to be right?”

You responded: “No….”

Then your “disclaimer” was meaningless.

1. You said that you were NOT arguing: Hyper-preterism is new. Therefore it is false.

2. Instead, you said, you were only arguing: Hyper-preterism is new. Therefore it is “not a subset of Christianity.”

3. But now you argue: “Hyper-preterism” is not a subset of Christianity. Therefore it is false.

4. Therefore, your argument really IS: “Hyper-preterism is new. Therefore it is false.

5. So you agree with what you said you were NOT arguing.

6. Thus your disclaimer was meaningless.

Dave

“We believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and in communion with that Spirit. If the believer experiences such spiritual baptism and communion, then no rite or ritual is necessary. …The Quaker ideal is to make every meal at every table a Lord’s Supper.” Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7

Seems to me that the Quaker rejection of the Lord’s Supper is based upon hyper-idealism, not “hyper-preterism”.

The basis of hyper-preterism’s rejection of the Lord’s Supper is squarely upon the grounds of “AD70 Dispensationalism”, which sees fundamental differences in Christianity prior to, and following, the fall of Herod’s temple.

By the way, this view of consistent cessationism with regard to the observance of the Lord’s Supper has been classified as “hyper-preterism” even by full preterists. Ed Stevens, for instance, has said that he considers this AD70 cessation doctrine to be “hyper” preterism and false:

“These folks would also see baptism, the Lord’s Supper and other such physical expressions of our ongoing covenant relationship with God as being no longer valid in the post-70 Kingdom. This is certainly an extreme “hyper” preterist position, and very few have taken that route. ”

As I dig through the www in the coming days, I’ll be very interested to see the earliest to reject the Lord’s Supper on a preterist/AD70 rationale.

blessings!
TD

“Seems to me that the Quaker rejection of the Lord’s Supper is [not] based upon . . . ‘hyper-preterism.’”

As if I said it was.

Dave

Dave, you’re being very slippery. I asked for a theologian teaching that the Lord’s Supper has ceased. You’re still trying to pass of as an example a movement that teaches that the thing called the “Lord’s Supper” as Christians use that term never ever existed. How can they possibly think that it ceased if they think it never existed at all?

You try to make an argument fin some vague unspecified way, saying that according to the Salvation Army there was some sort of thing once called the Lord’s Supper, but at some unidentified time is disappeared but they don’t say why or when (according to you). This sort of faint murmering is no argument. Give us facts or go home.

HERE is the most direct systematic treatment of the sacraments from a Salvation Army perspective that you are likely to find, written by Major Clifford Kew.

Kew clearly refutes your claim about them, that they believe the Lord’s Supper was once an institution enjoined on the church by God, but now it has ceased. That’s a fiction. Here is their actual position:

If, therefore, Salvationists are called to justify their
abstinence from the communion service they may
justifiably ask, ‘Which service?’ for there has never been
universal agreement on a liturgy and each group of
Christians has clung to its own observance in the belief
that it was the only right one. These attitudes have
produced many of the divisions in the Church which the
ecumenical movement has lately tried to heal. In the
words of General Frederick Coutts (No Discharge in This
War): ‘The witness of the Salvationist is simply that the
presence of the risen Christ may be fully realized, and
divine grace freely received, without the use of any
material element. The Salvationist believes most ardently
in the Real Presence.’

It’s not that they thought it necessary once, but no longer. According to their view, it has never been necessary. You were wrong. They do not teach that the Lord’s Supper has ceased.

As I indicated already, because of your total mishandling of their position, I am definitely not prepared to take your word on whether or not the Quakers taught that the Lord’s Supper has in fact ceased.

Lastly Dave, your insistence that my dislcaimer is meaningless is wrong. My disclaimer is very simple. My disclaimer is that the observations made in this blog post are designed to show that the hyperpreterist view of the Lord’s supper is ahistorical with respect to the Christian faith.

Do you at least understand what that means? If not, stop reading now and ask for clarification.

Next, I want you to realise that the concept of being ahistorical with respect to Christianity is not the same as the concept of falsehood.

If you understand both of these two points, then continue reading. If not, pelase ask for clarification.

Next I want you to retract your obviously false statement: “But now you argue: “Hyper-preterism” is not a subset of Christianity. Therefore it is false.” I did not make this argument. Please acknowledge this without delay.

My blog post is designed to do nothing more than further demonstate that hyperpreterism constitutes a rejection of historical Christianity. I realise that hyperpreterists believe that historica Christianity has simply gotten it wrong. Fine - that’s not the point. The point is to show enquirers that whatever Hyperpreterism is, it isn’t Christian.

Your contortions are just out of place and silly. My disclaimer is meaningful and easy for everyone to understand. I believe that you understand it, but wish to strike up a fight about it for no good reason.

The Quakers or Friends, are not technically a Church, but are a philosophical Society. You can be a “Friend” and not even be a Christian. So the practice of a religious acts, is not considered appropriate within a Friends Fellowship! Friends gather to meditate, and one book they meditate on is the Bible, but not the only one. This would be similar to someone joining a Buddist Temple, for the purpose of quiet meditation, however they are not necessarily a Buddist Monk! This would not mean that individual Friends would not celebrate the Lord’s Supper under other circumstances.

The Salvation Army, is a service organization, and like many missionary groups is made up of individuals from many different denominations. Each denomination would have its own understanding of the practices of the Lord’s Supper, so the mission would not have a position of the specific practices.

The philosophical society, and the service organization are not a church or denomination, though in both of the above cases there is some overlap, which makes both unique, depending upon the individuals involved! However for Dave to attempt to compare their position on these matters only demonstrates Dave’s willingness to grasp at straws. I will assume to be consistent Dave also advocates that all F&HP Preterist should wear a military style uniform with appropriate badges and shoulder patches so that we can distinguish their specific order of Preterism to which they belong, and the rank they have achieved! Gk

Hi Glenn,

“I asked for a theologian teaching that the Lord’s Supper has ceased.”

You asked for a theologian “who failed to celebrate the Lord’s supper and who advocated other Christians not to take part in it.” It is regretful that you stumbled over my use of the word “ceased.” Nevertheless, the theologians of the Salvation Army and of the Quakers amply satisfy the conditions of your question (failed to celebrate the Lord’s supper; advocated others not take part in it).

” . . . the concept of being ahistorical with respect to Christianity is not the same as the concept of falsehood.”

So then, one can be ahistorical with respect to historic Christianity and potentially not be in falsehood?

“Next I want you to retract your obviously false statement: “But now you argue: “Hyper-preterism” is not a subset of Christianity. Therefore it is false.” I did not make this argument. Please acknowledge this without delay.”

You disagree with the argument? Do you argue instead that a doctrine can be outside of historic Christianity (”not a subset”) and potentially NOT be false?

Dave

“The Quakers or Friends, are not technically a Church, but are a philosophical Society.”

http://www.quakerinfo.com/quakfind.shtml (”Finding Friends (Quaker) Meetings and Churches Using the Internet”)

See also:

“The Church of England was . . . the largest denomination in England and endowed with many privileges, but it was accompanied by other legal self-governing, self-maintained free churches –the Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Quakers.” (History of Christianity, by James Hastings Nichols, page 61)

“The Salvation Army, is a service organization. . . . [T]he service organization [is] not a church or denomination. . . . ”

“The Salvation Army is a Christian church which is committed to spreading the good news of Jesus Christ through both word and action.”
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq%5Cwww_sa.nsf/vw-sublinks/E4E2D629AF94769680256D4E0041547D?openDocument

“While the Salvation Army originally opted to involved members from many denominations, the Church Army was aligned with the Church of England. Over the years, the Salvation Army did become a denomination.” http://www.churcharmy.com/faq.html

Dave

Dave, you got your use of “ceased,” presumably, from the title of the blog post itself. “The cessation of the Lord’s supper and other things that never happened.” Are you actually saying now that you didn’t realise that this is what the thread is about?

Now that I can clearly see you trying to distance yourself from the word “ceased,” let me ask you: Are you now changing your tune by admitting that the Salvation Army do not teach that the Lord’s Supper once existed, but has since ceased?

“So then, one can be ahistorical with respect to historic Christianity and potentially not be in falsehood?”

No, I don’t think so, but that was not my argument. My argument related to the concept of something being ahistorical in Christianity, not falsehood. All I was trying to do, as I have explained to you more than once now, is to get people to see that hyperpreterism is totally ahistorical in Christianity. When people realise that (and my job is done), I hope that they will then take the extra step themselves by saying tot hemselves “wait - that means it’s not true.” I think you know that this is what I am saying.

Just a comment on the Salvation army - Some years ago when I first asked someone in the Salvation Army why they don’t have the Lord’s Supper, the answer they gave me is that “it’s because we’re not an institutional church,” so it’s fair to say that this line of reasoning is still current with at least some of them.

Over time once it became clear that the movement really did function like a church, it looks to me like the second line of reasoning became common as well - namely that the Lord’s Supper was never meant as an institution in the way that churches think it is.

But either way, there’s absolutely no suggestion that the Lord’s Supper ceased, and twice now Dave has claimed that they teach that it ceased. There needs to be a retraction on that.

I haven’t looked into the Quakers yet, but will soon.

” . . . there’s absolutely no suggestion that the Lord’s Supper ceased, and twice now Dave has claimed that they teach that it ceased. There needs to be a retraction on that.”

Hi Glenn,

When I said “cessation/ceased,” you apparently assumed I was saying, “The Salvation Army and the Quakers believe that the Lord’s Supper was abolished in AD 70, just like us ‘hyper-preterists’ believe.” That, of course, was not what I was saying.

Here, again, is what I’m saying:

The Salvation Army and the Quakers both believe that the Lord’s Supper was never meant to be “for all Christians for all time” (as quoted in the Salvation Army document I linked for you). Not sure how else to interpret that than that the Lord’s Supper was meant for Christ’s contemporaries and not for all believers throughout the centuries. As the following Salvation Army video states, the Lord’s Supper had relevance to the first-century, “Jewish culture, Jewish Messiah, Jewish Apostles, Jewish feast.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TmeZWPwN8w (1:15 - 1:30)

The salient fact: According to the Salvation Army and the Quakers, the Lord’s Supper was meant for “back then” and not for today. Whatever other issues there are (such as whether it was ever a “binding institution”), that is the common ground between those two orthodox, Protestant denominations and “hyper-preterists.”

And lastly, again:

You asked for a theologian “who failed to celebrate the Lord’s supper and who advocated other Christians not to take part in it.” The theologians of the Salvation Army and of the Quakers thoroughly satisfied the conditions of your question. Those theologians failed to celebrate the Lord’s supper and they advocated others not take part in it. Correct?

All I was trying to do, as I have explained to you more than once now, is to get people to see that hyperpreterism is totally ahistorical in Christianity. When people realise that (and my job is done), I hope that they will then take the extra step themselves by saying tot hemselves “wait - that means it’s not true.” I think you know that this is what I am saying.

So you believe that since “hyper-preterism” is new, it is therefore false. Yet you issued a “disclaimer” that implied that just because “hyper-preterism” is new, that doesn’t prove it’s false; it only proves that it’s new (not a subset of historic Christianity). That’s meaningless. Here are the words of your “disclaimer”:

“DISCLAIMER: Showing that a belief is new is not the same as showing that it is not true. However if it turns out that hyperpreterism is composed of a set of beliefs that Christianity has never taught but has in fact always denied, then you should agree that hyperpreterism is not a subset of Christianity.”

Your “disclaimer” was either poorly worded, or poorly thought out, or deceptive. I’m guessing it was (and remains) poorly thought out.

Dave

Dave, how could it be “apparent” that I thought you were claiming that these groups thought that the Lord’s Supper ceased in AD 70? I never even mentioned AD 70 in reference to these groups. I did not think this at all.

Do not now try to pretend that you were tricked, or that you did nopt realise from the very beginning that this is all about the Lord’s Supper ceasing. The blog itself was called “The cessation fo the Lord’s Supper,” the belief that I held out as ahistorical was the belief that the Lord’s Supper had ceased, and your reply to me used language that showed that you fully understood this, since you also used the language of the Lord’s Supper having “ceased.”

The fact that your example of the Salvation army has failed is no excuse to shift the goalposts. All it does is make you look duplicitous. Your appeal to the “salient fact” is without merit, since the “salient fact” that you vaguely wave your hand is incapable of affirming that there ever was such a thing as the institution of the Lord’s Supper at all.

The true Salient fact is this: You are unable to point to a single representative of the Salvation Army who has said “Other churches continue to practice the Lord’s Supper, but actually God has brought that to an end.”

You realise, surely, that just because a movement says “we do not practice the Lord’s Supper as it is not required” it does not follow that they think anything like “it was required for a period of time, but then it stopped being required.” Surely you do not think this way in everyday life, Dave!

Regarding the disclaimer, you are wrong, I am right. The disclaimer is simple and easy to understand. That I also think that new theology is, as a matter of fact, false theology does not mean that this is what I was saying in the disclaimer. In the disclaimer I was pointing out - as you already know, for you have been told at lest threee times - that I was showing that a doctrine is ahistorical in Christianity. This is distinct from showing that the doctrine is false. Stated differently, my argument was an historical one, not a theological one.

Has the penny dropped yet?

This disclaimer is well thought out, cogent, clear, honest, easy to follow, and being contorted by you for reasons that seem beyond my grasp. I will leave you to your own devices there, you are unwilling to hear.

You’re hunting for cracks into which you can push the thought that a brand new doctrine can be completely true. Why not instead have the humility to submit yourself to historic Christianity?

David Green and the other hyperterist would have you believing that most churches are in error that the lords supper ended in 70 A.D..We Christians ought to partake in the Lord’s Super until he comes again.I went to a Church of Christ till I found a great Baptist Church,the Church of Christ still believes that insturmental music doesn’t belong in church.The ones I talked to didn’t even know if they were saved or not.The were confused.

Glenn, the thing that is always surprising to me about Dave Green, is that he supposedly is one of the theologians in the F&HP camp, but instead of coming off as intelligent, he comes off as smarmy! If he really had a case, it seems that he would do himself a favor of reputably presenting his case. As it is, he always tries to slide one in through some supposed crack in the Church walls!

I have been in contact with the Friend community here in Denver, actually Arvada that has a sizable fellowship, and also the Salvation Army! Talked to many individuals, and in both groups you have Christians, and non-Christians; and both in good standing! I always thought that they were Christians, so was surprised when I found out otherwise. The Friends were all very nice and mellow, consciencious objectors, who were glad to sit in meeting, and never anyone say a word. They get a lot of their principles from the Bible, but are certainly not limited to the Bible. So if some individual came out and said anything regarding the Lord’s supper, it would be his opinion alone, and not some specific belief of the Friends. In fact if you look up a doctrinal statement by the Friends, you will find it notable by its absence!

The same is true of the Salvation Army, though individuals can meet in a worship environment, where they celebrate communion, it would be separate from the rehab and processing plants which are non profit, supposedly, though they actually make a very large profit selling junk to cars and boats and anything else that is donated. They are now quasi-Government in as much as they use people doing community service for much of their processing! There was a stink here in Denver regarding the Salvation Army where one of the higher ups, was living a royal life with lots of benefits. They collected large amounts of water for the Hurricane Katrina relief, but was going to cost more to ship than it was worth, so they were dumping it down the drain since they could not store it all! The point being that their sole motivation, was profit, and not the souls of those who they were supposedly reaching out to save. Which if we wanted to get into what other things the Salvation Army is teaching from a doctrinal standpoint, I think we would also find some other doctrines that are far from reformed, or based on Sola Scriptura, or salvation by Grace through Faith, but many of them border on universalism and working for your own salvation, hence all their hard work to impress God and men!

So if Dave insists on using these as sources supporting his contention, I can only wonder if that is not the best they can come up with, calling the Salvation Army commander, a theologian. I have tried to talk with the Denver commander, and he had neither the time or the inclination to talk about Jesus to me at any time. But then what F&HP really wants to talk about Jesus either? it is all about 70AD, and everything else has to fit into that paradigm! If Jesus doesn’t fit, then they will talk about something else, like their discussion about the Lord’s Supper ceasing, which at best is superfluous. Why are they so willing to work so hard to prove that they do not need to remember and rejoice in Jesus? Gk

Gatekeeper, that’s interesting about the Salvation Army and the Quakers. Here in New Zealand, however, I have always for the Salvation Army to be very evangelical in outlook.

Just because this group is generally regarded by other Christians as legitimately Christian and I certainly have found them to be so, I wouldn’t want to insist on not allowing them as examples.

The issue for me, however, is that Dave hasn’t provided an example of the Salvation Army teaching that the Lord’s Supper ceased. With relatively little effort I was able to provide an example of a prominent SA writer teaching that it was never necessary, not that it was required for a while but then ceased (i.e. by God, not by poor observance).

So Dave’s problem is that he desparately wants there to be examples, but there are none. I don’t know how orthodox the Quakers are, but I’ll look further into it. But here again, Dave has absolutely not provided evidence that they teach that the Lord’s Supper has ceased. He’s making much noise over nothing.

Yes I usually hear a lot of noise over nothing when DG shake, rolls, and rattles! I have not been impressed by his scholarship to even buy his book, as I expect others are not buying his line either! He really does himself a disservice, but he thinks he is being “smart,” and it only comes accross as “smart ass!”

I am sure that there are SA individuals who are quite evangelical, and maybe even some of the founding principles, so depending on who you are dealing with would make a lot of difference. However I have never heard of anyone referring to the SA as a source for theological excellence. Service is what they are mainly about, and I expect usually they do a pretty good job of emergency relief. But they are sort of like the Red Cross, which I am sure also has some dedicated Christians in their ranks, and even Christian priciples in their founding, but I don’t hear DG quoting any of them! So I maintain that he is grasping at straws at best! GK

I used to get a Pret Cosmos feed, on which I noticed recently in regards to this thread that Dave G had gone like one of the little pigs, “crying wee-wee all the way home!” Seems that when he could not persuade us with his superior power of persuasion his only recourse was to whine and carry on about how mean and unintelligent we are, and to say nothing about the actual subject matter! I usually do not post on PC, but this time since he could not keep facts straight and was distorting his influence here and there, I countered his comments. Usually DG posts away there as if it is his personal journal, so for someone to oppose him, was more than Ed Hassert could abide, and so Ed got into correcting me, not on the basis of our arguement or my statement of Faith, but on the basis of the fact that I use an anonymous name.

Now when there best arguement is based upon the name of the opposition, I have to question their sincereity in the discussion in the first place. How many times does a soldier in battle actually know the name of the enemy soldier in the opposite trench or foxhole! Poor Eddie, seemed to think that if I had provided him a “real” name, that somehow that would make his arguement more true! Sorry Eddie, if I had given you a name other than Gatekeeper, you would not have known the veracity of that name either. Yours and Dave Greens position would remain just as weak and untenable as ever!

So Eddie, I doubt that you even have the intellectual honesty to even read an opposition statement such as this, and you can cut me off from the Pret Cosmos feed, but you do not have the power to change the Truth of our position, nor to force your will upon anyone who stands in your way! When you ban opposition thinking from your presence, all you do is dig a deeper hole for yourself in the terra firma of ignorance! Enjoy the Darkness! Gk

Gatekeeper: “Seems that when he could not persuade us with his superior power of persuasion his only recourse was to whine and carry on about how mean and unintelligent we are, and to say nothing about the actual subject matter! I usually do not post on PC, but this time since he could not keep facts straight and was distorting his influence here and there, I countered his comments.”

I didn’t say anything about anyone’s meanness or lack of intelligence. I didn’t distort any facts. I only quoted you and Glenn and said that you guys are the beginning of my “fan club” here. Obviously I was being facetious.

To sum up: I said absolutely nothing that was in any way derogatory or critical about you, Glenn or anyone else on this website.

If you’re trying to break the ninth commandment, Gatekeeper, you’re doing it well.

Dave

Here is the report of another Dave Green fan, quoted in full for the benefit of all! Please note this is between fellow F&HP, whose appraisal of Dave Green, is less than flattering, though DG would probably consider them fans. So enjoy!

“Re: [SGPList] I got booted off of Pret Cosmos for asking legit questions

Mike S,

You need to understand that some members on the PC list likes to use terminology that is exclusively restricted for the damned. For Dave to refer to Mike B as a hypocrite is to place Mike B in the category of “Woe to you scribes and Pharisess, ***hypocrites***. Please don’t try to justify Dave’s malice. It is mean, unwarranted, and needs to be corrected. He needs to apologize. Unfortunately it is (as you have been shown many times) his pattern of behavior. This isn’t a one time issue. David Green is as mean as they come. Again, he has labeled me antinomian and labeled my views as gnostic and I am not antinomian or gnostic. He calls people names, makes ad hominem remarks when he begins to lose the argument. And now he has done the same thing with Mike Bennett and here you are trying to defend this kind of meanness. Mike, why would you defend Dave Green instead of coming to the defense of Mike B, a brother and call Dave Green out for saying such a horrible thing?

Ward”

I do not desire to promote the site, so I have not included a link! However If desired, or required, I would be glad to do so! I would also point out that this is old news, as of Mon Jan 1, 2007 2:03 am, so it is not like I am posting anything new. DG is nothing new, but the same spirit abides on him, as in the beginning! He is like the serpent who whispers lies to deceive, but always with a smile!

Now I wonder who runs Pret Cosmos, who could remove my access to the feed, and ban my email posting? Is it Ed Hassert? Gk

Gatekeeper: “DG is nothing new, but the same spirit abides on him, as in the beginning! He is like the serpent who whispers lies to deceive, but always with a smile!”

As we know, Gatekeeper bore false witness against me. He bluntly lied when he said that I called the people on this website mean and unintelligent (See my message above, posted 13 Dec 2009 at 4:35 pm). Of course, I never said any such thing. There is not one shred of truth in Gatekeeper’s false accusation. It is a 100% fiction and falsehood. It is not even a half truth. He made it up out of whole cloth.

Gatekeeper’s false witness has been made plain and evident to all here. But now, what does Gatekeeper do? Does he confess his sin? Does he apologize? Does he repent? Does he humble himself? Does he make amends for the wrong he committed against another? Does he recant?

No.

Instead, Gatekeeper does the exact opposite of what a Christian does:

He calls the person he slandered a Liar and a Deceiver on the level of the Devil.

Meanwhile, Gatekeeper is trumpeting to the world that he is being led by the Holy Spirit.

Wow.

Dave

Dave wrote:

Gatekeeper bore false witness against me. He bluntly lied when he said that I called the people on this website mean and unintelligent (See my message above, posted 13 Dec 2009 at 4:35 pm).

Tom, you should either provide proof of your comments or repent and ask for forgiveness for these comments. It is the right thing to do.

Just because we disagree with someone does not give us the right to misrepresent them. We must be careful with what comes out of our mouth. I’ve been guilty of this much too often so I’m not trying to set myself above anyone else n this issue. I am trying very hard not to be guilty of it now and rest on the Lord to help me be true to His Word, which tells us not to bear false witness against anyone.

Thanks,
Sharon

Sharon, Being that I no longer have access to the Pret Cosmos feed, it is not possible to access what I said on that thread. The thrust of what I said was based upon DG’s statement about certain ones of us being his fan club, which even he attest to was done in a facetious fashion, ie. tongue in cheek! Hear DG’s own words,

“I didn’t say anything about anyone’s meanness or lack of intelligence. I didn’t distort any facts. I only quoted you and Glenn and said that you guys are the beginning of my “fan club” here. Obviously I was being facetious.

To sum up: I said absolutely nothing that was in any way derogatory or critical about you, Glenn or anyone else on this website.”

So though he did not specifically say anything about us being mean and unintelligent, the implication was certainly there in his snide and slimy statement, and my further description of DG being a snake in the grass, is still apropos! For DG to claim that he said nothing derogatory, is a lie, coming from him at the very time that he is attempting to elicit some sort of repentance from me for supposedly lying! This has to be the height of hypocrisy, but obviously this does not bother him at all! So why should any statement I made bother me? That I hold myself to a higher standard? Sorry, but that will not work, for the Standard I hold myself to, is the Love of the Truth, and I find no Truth, or love of the Truth in Dave Green!

I appreciate your desire for maintaining the truth, however I find no basis for seeking to be PC with DG! I as a Christian find I have no fellowship with him, nor do I feel compelled to discern anything less than the liar and deceiver that he is! For this reason, I see no reason or basis for repentance for anything I have said. The spirit of what DG said, is that Glenn and I are too unintelligent to understand about the issues, and we were just being mean to him to not accept his position based upon the statements by his quoted theologians. So instead of continuing his discussion on PB with Glenn and myself, he went to his own site, and made comments which were intended to distract from the subject, and offered no further substance to the discussion!

If he is so thin skinned, to think by invoking some rule of order that he is going to reform the internet debate he is sadly misinformed. All the discussion of legal options, and posturing that goes on, distracts from the actual discussion of the issues, which is what he is primarily interested in, and not the discussion of the subject matter itself!

Now he is more that welcome to go to Pret Cosmos and make any kind of statement he chooses, and normally I have said nothing to him in his venue. However since this time he was specifically referring to me, I chose to respond to his slurs, and slurs they were, though couched in amiable words. Truly the words of the Wicked!

If he would like to present a sound resource, he is free to do so! If he chooses to discuss the issues, then I would respond to him, however any further response based upon any supposed spiritual ethic between brothers, is not applicable in the volatile atmosphere of the internet. If he can’t stand the heat, let him stay out of the kitchen! I realize that Popsicle Preterist can’t stand much heat, when like the wicked witch of the West, she cried out, “I’m melting!” as if we are now to run to their aid and comfort!

Gk

Hi Tom,

Okay then. I’ll butt out.

Sharon

Hi Tom,

One more thing Tom.

On another blog thread here, you wrote:

Gatekeeper says…
Wanda, there is a punch line here, but I am waiting for Hal to provide the documentation of his claims! Otherwise Hal is just another F&HP windbag, making unsubstantiated claims! He says he does not read PB, so maybe you would do the favor of informing Hal that I am expecting him to provide the desired documentation, or a retraction of his statements regarding Gatekeeper and Bobby Fischer!

I do appreciate your statement above, that I do not misrepresent myself as being someone else. I think this is an important distinction between those who use anonymity to misrepresent their position. I have always tried to be consistent in what I say I believe, unlike some who rise and fall with every wave of doctrine! Gk

Posted on 16 Dec 2009 at 8:55 am

http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3957#comment-6506

You wrote above that as a Christian you do not find fellowship with Dave Green, therefore you do not feel obligated to apologize to him for any misrepesentation you may have made about him. I would assume you also do not find fellowship with Hal, since he is also a full preterist.

If so, why are you saying Hal owes you an apology for misrepresenting you, but if you misrepresent Hal (for instance) you wouldn’t feel the necessity of aplogizing to him?

Just wondering how you reconcile these things Tom.

Thanks,
Sharon

Hi again Sharon, I believe that I substantiated my claims as much as I can regarding DG, and I certainly clarified what they are, and I don’t believe there is any misrepresentation of what he said and the intent thereof! Hal on the other hand, has made nebulous unsubstantiated claims regarding myself! So I have ask Hal to document for the sake of clarity and correctness exactly what it is that he is claiming I said about Fischer! In one case, I believe I had a basis for what I said, in the other I see no basis for what Hal said about me out of the blue, except that it provides cover for Sam to run and hide!

I do not expect, or particularly desire Hal to change his story, if he has reason for relating the info which he claims, I am just looking to understand the reason.. I do not see my request, to be a demand, since he is completely free to relate whatever he chooses. See I am not even denying that I played Bobby Fischer, I am just interested in Hal’s memory of what I said! If he is going to witness of something I said, it may be based upon the exact documents, or even just his memory, of which he is welcome to provide either one, but I want to be clear what the basis of his statement is, that’s all.

In the case of DG, I was making statements about an ongoing current situation, but in the case of Hal, he is referring to something said months ago! Many of the readers may not have even seen my previous comments, so they have no basis of understanding what Hal is speaking about! I am curious about what it is that motivates Hal to remember a passing statement I made months ago, unless he is on a vendetta against the Gatekeeper, which is what I say has been going on since he came on the scene! A vendetta which I believe it is only fair for the other readers to understand, in understanding his current obsession!

I requested Wanda to convey my desires to Hal, though the intenet medium makes no provision for demanding anything! In real life a court can make demands upon a person, but I have yet to hear of a court basing any demand upon anyone for a statement made in an internet chat room by consenting adults. So all the talk by some of legal action pending some implied insult someone receives on the internet in a discussion group, is just a matter of posturing. You will not find me making any demands based upon some legal action! If I decide I cannot stand the heat, I will get out of the kitchen! As it is, I find the temperature just getting comfortable, and having been in the Usenet kithen for 10 years, this is hardly enough to make one sweat! If someone feels that their business or livelyhood is in jeopardy because of some chat group, then they should not be inserting their business into the chat groupl That is a main reason why I use an anonymous moniker. That way I can participate in the discussion, without worrying about my business, or feeling compelled to throttle the conversation on the basis of it affecting my business. I wonder what the real motive of someone is who comes into a discussion group wearing his business suit, and then pulls out his business card, when the rest of us our outfitted for some paint-ball wars? Gk

Hi Tom,

If that is your stance, I don’t agree. If anyone makes claims about someone (anyone!), they should be able to back them up. This holds especially true of Christians. No matter who they are in discussion with or speaking about, whether they like the person or not or whether they agree with the persons views or not, it doesn’t matter. Christians should not be going around making claims that are not true. All I asked was either prove your charges against Dave Green or retract (and the right thing would be to apologize after that). If you are unwilling to do so, then I adamantly disagree.

Thanks for the replies. You can have the last word, if you care to.

Sharon

Well Sharon, I don’t know about it being the last word, but you are certainly welcome to disagree with me! You say as Christians we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, making unsupported claims that are not true! I have offered the evidence that I have, and leave it to the listening audience to determine whether it holds any merit. I do not have the availability of offering proof which is due to the limits of the medium. That is why this is a discussion group, and not a court room! I do not feel compelled to offer anything as proof, but as evidence. Some seem to have such an elevated opinion of themselves and of their opinion on every subject, that it is proof of their position, and not evidence of their life choices! Yet what we deal with as the medium of exchange here in the chat group, is not Truth, but our perception of Truth, which is still open to discussion!

What I have maintained all along, is that the evidence is that DG is a snake in the grass! I present my evidence, though it may not rise to the level of proof, it is a fair warning for others who may run accross him in the Way! Gk

So I call Gatekeeper a member of my “fan club,” and what Gatekeeper “hears” me say is:

“Gatekeeper and everybody else at the Preterist Blog is unintelligent and mean.”

Yikes! And he says I’m thin skinned.

Ah well. Thank you for your effort Sharon. You are very kind as always.

Dave –Snake in the Grass, Liar, Deceiver, Popsicle Preterist, Esq.

Tom said: “I requested Wanda to convey my desires to Hal, though the intenet medium makes no provision for demanding anything!”

Oh - I am so sorry… I did see your request but I totally just blew it off cause I am NOT the bridge between pretblog and other sites! some may infer that I am the “un-named mysterious source that enlightens sam & co and others to the things they are called out for here…but that is a falsehood. One I never felt I needed to clarify because quite frankly, I know I am not that one and those that receive the info know I am not that one so why waste the time and effort!

I have kept a log on all of Sam’s titles just because i want to present him with a plague someday and i find it funny….I also have occasionally (but not recently) let Alan know if he was mentioned but other than some back and forth with friends that mutally already KNOW they are being dragged into this site…I don’t inform anyone!

I DO however let Sam know of positive (tho not lately!) responses at DID that I feel would encourage him or lift his spirits but that has always been pulled out into the light of day. Once, I thought he was aware that Dr. B had publically made a statement and sent him a word of encouragement and that did result in him finding out about it being public but other than those specific situations I am not the source…

so, I didnt tell Hal you had challenged him to come forward with proof…I dont know his identity but I do enjoy comaderie, and a fellowship with him that has always been straight forward and honest and open but I don’t think you should hold your breath for him to post here…sorry. just a hunch!

If you really want me too I can email him this link tomorrow when I am back online and at least give him the heads up but doubt he will post over here considering how he feels about this site and those (even his friends) who post here too…

But I will if you feel it important. I will check in the am. Blessings… W

Like you say Wanda, I don’t ever expect to see Hal post here, but if he wanted to post on RCM, SGP or PD, that is fine with me! I still read over there! So if you want to convey the message to him, that is fine with me, though I doubt that he even has the back bone to explain himself there. Thanks for your effort though in this matter! Gk

Alrighty, here’s a Salvation Army explanation as to how the Lord’s Supper “ceased.” This answer came from Phil Layton, author of the authoritative Salvation Army book, The Sacraments and the Bible. http://www.thesacramentsandthebible.org.uk/

Layton wrote:

Jesus’ words at the last supper gave new meaning to the passover meal. In around AD 125 Emperor Hadrian outlawed the Jewish passover. As a result, Jewish Christians were not allowed to partake of the passover meal the way that Jesus commanded. It thus became distorted, the meaning lost, and the mere bread and wine substituted. In that sense the Lord’s Supper ceased.

Dave

Dave - he said that it ceased because people stopped celebrating it properly. That’s not cessation, that’s just disobedience. Score = 0.

You know exactly what this is about: Hyperpreterism involves the claim that the Lord’s Supper ceased because of theological truth: That Christ already returned (according to the HPs). They don’t say that people started sinning by not celebrating it anymore. Big difference.

Hi Glenn,

“Hyperpreterism involves the claim that the Lord’s Supper ceased because of theological truth.”

True. But you didn’t ask for people in history who claimed that “the Lord’s Supper ceased because of theological truth.”

You asked for people in history “who failed to celebrate the Lord’s supper and who advocated other Christians not to take part in it.”

That’s the question I answered.

Dave

Dave - I had already made it very clear that I was talking about the Lord’s Supper being ceased.

I pointed out - already - that this is not the sam as people merely quitting the practice of the Lord’s Supper.

You knew this already.

Hi Glenn,

I shouldn’t have answered the question you asked. I should have answer the question you really meant to asked. I apologize.

Dave

Actually you have not succeeded in answering either of them, but instead you have been flopping around in the grass like a snake that has had its head crushed! Gk