Encouraging words from Todd Dennis

Filed Under (Different Gospel, dee dee's posts, hyperpreterism) by dee dee on 27-06-2010

Tagged Under :

I was reading an article by Todd Dennis opposing hyperpreterism and came across this words:

In my honest opinion, this is gross heresy which is worthy to be vigorously opposed. It is certainly as bad - if not much worse - than the Dispensationalist teaching that animal sacrifices will be re-instituted in a salvific sense in a rebuilt temple! My only regret is that I actually supported this overthrow of this Christian message for over ten years. (The Lord is Sovereign and has His purposes with which I do not dispute; However, from my perspective, it is a regrettable decade of promoting heresy.)

Comments:

Total 3 Comments posted Encouraging words from Todd Dennis

Paul says...

Dee,

Dennis makes a really good point here,

Though many of the finer points of Hyper Preterist (HyP) error can be displayed in detail, doing so can often be hard to understand for those unstudied in biblical theology.

I think that is the reason RE caved into Green and Sullivan. It is clear to me RE never really took the time to understand the doctrines of reformed evangelical orthodox Christianity.

Posted on 27 Jun 2010 at 4:08 pm
Todd Dennis says...

Heya there, I just want to make it clear that I still believe exactly the same now as then — even more so!

I only wrote “honest opinion” because so many were acting like I was just putting one on about the whole “leaving full preterism” thing — every opinion I write is my honest one.

It is akin to those who HyPs who truly believe that Gary DeMar is a closet full pret.. a total self serving delusion that the non HyP is lying about their contrary opinions.

Once the baseball season is over I plan on writing again, so this should be a very fun winter.

blessings!
td

Posted on 28 Jun 2010 at 3:54 pm
Paul says...

Green writes,

Todd, “the fall of the Jewish temple” was not, according to “hyper-preterism,” an “augmentation of” or “adding to” or “diminishing of” the Cross. Nor was the Cross “dependent on” “the fall of the Jewish temple.” You’ve been listening to Kelly Birks’ caricature of “hyper-preterism.” What preterism actually teaches (you should already know this) is that the fall of the Father’s earthly house (Jn.
2:16) wasaccomplished through the power of His Son’s age-changing, world-transforming death and resurrection. It was a result of the Cross, not an “adding to” the Cross.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/21827

Gee, I thought the fall of the temple occurred prior to the cross when Jesus Christ referred to the temple as “their” house, (Matt 23:38) indicating the building was no longer His house. Dave whose house fell in AD70 if Jesus Christ claims it was no longer his Fathers house? Oops, we don’t want to go there, right, that would be dealing with what Scripture actually states. However your denial above is a bit much given you’ve claimed,

No, my position is not that “the basis” for justification was accomplished at the cross. My position is that justification itself (not merely “the basis of justification”) was accomplished at the Cross and that it was consummated in the Parousia (in AD 70).
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=4096

So according to Green the cross was not sufficient to complete the Justification of the elect, what was begun at the cross still yet had to be consummated. That sounds like adding something to me, but hey no doubt the sophist Green will attempt to cover his tracks just like he does above. “No, my position is the cross was sufficient, you just need to understand what was sufficient needed an extra step.” Dave, you have an easy out, you can always claim, “Hey, it’s a “paradox”!

Posted on 29 Jun 2010 at 2:16 am

Post a comment