Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t
Filed Under (Uncategorized) by dee dee on 12-06-2005
Tagged Under : hyperpreterism
I had been asked to somewhat explain the theological distinction I make between damnable heresy and damnable heretic.
I will in fact quote what I had written before:
There is an additional point that needs to be made here, and that is why I state that this mythology is a “potentially” damnable heresy and not a definitely damnable heresy. I do this because I am not God and do not know a person’s heart. I do not know if they have some kind of mental defect or how wholeheartedly they really embrace this mythology. A dear friend pointed out to me that there is a difference between someone who believes a heresy and a condemned heretic, and such a distinction requires discernment. If a person in full command of their faculties has been presented with the truth and willfully and repeatedly disregards and rejects it in this matter, such a person is a heretic. Others may simply just be deceived and need guidance and correction. It is a fine line to tread, but tread it we must as there are eternal consequences at stake, and the wolves are amongst the sheep.
The heresy viewed in isolation IS a definitely damnable heresy, however when the vagarities of frail humanity are tossed in the mix there can be mitigating factors which only God can know, thus when held by a person, it is potentially damnable heresy. I have been ridiculed for the above wherein I said if a person has a mental defect that would be taken into account by God - the point was that since I have been very open in my struggles with depression that I have no place to say that. Actually I do. It is because I am open about the effects of the Fall on my own body and mind that I understand and can easily admit that God remembers we are dust. The situation I specifically had in mind when writing that sentence was David Chilton - I never had the chance to know him, and do not have the knowledge to take a stand on that issue, but I do know that some of his friends believed that his heart attack affected his mind.
Thus, the distinctions I make can be summarized:
Hyperpreterism is a damnable heresy if all the ramifications are accepted but since we cannot know a person’s mind or heart and are not the eternal judge of destiny, when it is held by a person, it is a potentially damnable heresy vis a vis that person. That should not lessen our caution any more than we would cease locking up the kitchen chemicals from our children if some could survive its ingestion. Thus the hyperpreterist is a heretic, but only God an determine if they are a damned heretic. Not all heresies are equal. This is the only one referred to in the Word as gangrenous with an admonition to shun.
Dee Dee:
Thank you for posting this and clarifying your position. I respect you for doing so, and I regret that I have accused you of “judging” full preterists.
I would like to point out one thing, and I think you may have addressed it in some of your previous writings, but you wrote:
“[Hyperpreterism] is the only one referred to in the Word as gangrenous with an admonition to shun. ”
Two things:
1. Nowhere do the scriptures condemn full preterism.
2. The admonition to shun was given by Paul to Timothy to shun Hymenaeus and Philetus. He did NOT give that admonition to all believers to shun anyone they disagree with.
As I have stated before, full preterists believe along with partial preterists and Paul, that Hymenaeus and Philetus were heretics because they believed that the resurrection had already occurred as of Paul’s writing to Timothy (i.e. prior to AD 70). They were preaching a resurrection without Christ.
I posted the following in response to Sam’s article, “The Assumptions That Kill”:
“I almost have to agree with some partial preterists in that the the timing itself would not seem to be a big deal, but rather that the heresy rests on the inference of something else. Partials immediately say it must therefore be the nature (i.e., physical and fleshly vs. spiritual and “bodily”). My take is that the Timothy passages are silent on the nature, and that therefore the nature cannot be AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be the only reason if the timing is no big deal.
My opinion is that Paul was upset because H&P disassociated the resurrection from the eschaton/parousia (which had not yet occurred at the time of the writing, pre AD 70), and were therefore promoting a resurrection free of the finished high priestly work of Jesus Christ.
There could not be a resurrection until Jehovah had accepted the sacrifice. Jesus ascended into the Holy of Holies to offer Himself as the “once for all” sacrifice (Heb. 10), and had not yet “reappeared” out of the Holy of Holies (AD 70 Parousia) at the time of the writing of the Timothean epistles. Consequently, because Jehovah had not yet accepted the sacrifice, the Kingdom gates had not yet been opened up, Hades had not yet been emptied (resurrection), the separation of the sheep and goats/wheat and tares (i.e. the Judgement) had not yet happened, and Jesus Our High Priest had not yet reappeared out of the Holy of Holies to announce to His people that their salvation had been made complete (the “Day”, i.e. the Parousia).
So, in reality, Hymenaeus and Philetus were preaching a false gospel, one that had a resurrection without the finished work of Christ. And I think that that was what upset Paul so much.”
Now, Dee Dee, you may disagree with my reasoning, and I respect your freedom to do so. But do you not understand why full preterists do not believe the same thing as Hymenaeus and Philetus?
You keep trying to equate full preterism with “hymenaism”, but they are different. Do you honestly not see the difference? You can keep trying to make them the same, but scripturally, they are not. We believe the resurrection was still future as of the writing of the epistle, just like Paul.
Regards,
Bryan
Bryan:
First thank you for noting that you may have incorrectly represented my position. But in your defense, on one hand it is perfectly legitimate to say I condemn hyperpreterism in which the line can blur into hyperpreterists. But I always make the distinction I articulated above. As to your other points, and please I am not saying this to belittle you or Samuel, but really I don’t think you have gotten my point. Perhaps that is a failure to communicate on my part, but I don’t think so, and here’s why. Nearly every nonhyperpret that has read my piece gets it right off. I think perhaps that you guys are too close to the issue, have heard too many other kinds of arguments that you are not coming to my piece with a “virgin mind” so to speak.
On one hand, I did completely address some of your points in my original article - and on the other hand, some of your points are non-sequiters to the point I am actually arguing. Samuel’s article criticized me (not personally, but the article - though there was one personal comment I will address - the one that accused me of being of the same clothas those who would kill those who disagree) for not proving a point I never set out to prove. That is a strawman. I am not saying it is an intentional one, but it is a strawman nonetheless. However, let me tell you as I have said to Samuel, that “Duck” article was written over four years ago - it was written actually in a public forum debate I was having with a hyperpreterist (so now you know when you hear people claim that I NEVER have the nerve to debate hyperprets and insinuate I am a coward, that is false). I have done so in the past, and I do not do so now for multiple reasons, the main one being that it is my conviction that Scripture instructs me not to, as well as the more recent development of borderline stalking intimidation behaviour (not you or Samuel obviously).
But what I was trying to say and distracted myself is that I have revised and sharpened my “Duck” article and I hope to have the new one posted this weekend. As it is a substantial rewrite, perhaps this time my point is made plainer or more easily understood.