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

Repost: Originally posted 5/10/06

I have been having some limited follow-up discussion with Roderick over at his site after our interview. Michael Bennet has joined the conversation and started with a bang with his regurgigated routine that many of us have already been spammed with by email. He either cannot or will not understand that I “debate” or “discuss” one thing. Perhaps he hasn’t bothered to read my last two articles in which I make that clear. Instead he continues to pursue issues and debates that I am perfectly satisfied have been addressed by others. That is fine, I know my particular calling, and refusals to take “no” for an answer don’t concern me. It is annoying, however, when someone makes it plain that they are so self-absorbed that they cannot be bothered to even understand the other person’s particular focus. I do believe that this particular heresy for some reason has more than its share of adherents who behave that way when it comes to interaction. With all the cultic groups I have dealt with over the years, none have continued to pursue unwelcome debates once told nor ever regularly spammed me.

You can’t demonstrate anywhere where the resurrection is spoken of that can’t be connected by a time text or the covenant change Dee Dee - face the fact.

Read the rest of this entry »

I don’t bother to read hyperpreterist sites unless someone alerts me and even then, I rarely comment. It just is mostly background jibber-jabber, but I found this amusing from Dorothy, and thought that some good insights could be drawn from it (and certain lies to be corrected):

In case you don’t remember, my thoughts were that Preteristblog simply HAD to go away since is houses so much negative information about Sam, had attacked Sharon at one point and had a lot of negative information about DeMar and of course we now have Jason in the mix and it’s obvious he has NO respect for the old Preterist Blog, which is pretty much dead now. And we all know that Dee Dee is virtually if not totally irrelevant in her public anti-full preterist activities. She was top dog in the battle for over a decade but now is way down on that totem pole.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dave Green was being ridiculously sarcastic in his exaggerated comments when he wrote:

 ”"Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). That statement doesn’t refer to the actual death of Christ. It refers to the BIRTH of Christ AND a TYPE of the death of Christ (AD 30). The actual, true death of Christ for our sins will take place in the end of world history (AD 1,000,000 or whenever). That’s when Christ will really and actually and truly and once-and-for-all die for our sins.”http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/31944

He knows full well this example is nonsense, but that doesn’t stop him from doing whatever he can to try to make fun of his opponents. But what it DOES show us is HIS misguided view of salvation. Who would dream of saying anything like this except a hyper-preterist? Why do I write that? Because their view is that the cross wasn’t sufficient for spiritual salvation and until Jesus Christ came back in AD70 our “spiritual salvation” wasn’t complete? I can’t think of any orthodox Christian who would even dream of saying anything like this. Every orthodox Christian fully understands it was the work of Jesus Christ on the cross which secures our salvation.

Oh, I know Dave Green was trying to make fun of an orthodox view of types and shadows, but ultimately all he does is expose his own misguided view, which is akin to the New Perspectives on Paul. He proves this in his own writings in his book “House Divided” (page 46).

The current controversy in Reformed churches over “the new perspective on Paul” represents a return to the Augustinian, medieval, Catholic view that justification is progressive. Reformed futurists are having difficulty decisively answering the “progressive justification” argument of the “new perspective.” This is because (full) preterism is the only answer. If the Parousia did not take place when the temple fell in AD70, as Scripture teaches, then the “new perspective” is correct when it says that justification has not yet been consummated. If the Parousia has not yet happened, then the eschatological process of justification is still ongoing: “Now not for [Abrahams] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom [faith] is about to be reckoned [as righteousness, in the Parousia].” (Rom. 4:233-24a). The Reformed doctrine of non-progressive and full “justification by faith alone” at the point of conversion is true only if the eschatological process of “corporate justification” has already been consummated. It was consummated in AD70. In formulating “sola fide,” the Reformers were unknowingly conforming their soteriology to their preterist presuppositions. Full preterism and the Reformed doctrine of justification cannot long exist without each other.”[ bold mine –sn]

You see what he has done here. On the one hand, Green is trying to fit into the orthodox position which DISPUTES the “New Perspective on Paul” view. Yet (slyly), in his footnote, he is saying the “New Perspective on Paul” is the CORRECT view. ONLY if one accepts (full) hyper-preterism, then the Christian is saved at the point of conversion. What this means is, that hyper-preterist believe that justification WAS progressive during the period from the cross to AD70 (which would correspond to the orthodox ‘now’). IOW, for the hyper-preterist, only AFTER AD70, justification by faith alone is a reality. This is NOT Reformed theology, so for any of Dave Green and his hyper-preterist friends to claim they are “Reformed” is a misnomer.

So while Dave Green, in one breath, has decried the “New Perspective of Paul” view, in his next breath he has embraced the same view – at least for the period between the cross and AD70.

I have already commended David Green for his admission that all hyperpreterists should take seriously is that from the point of view of non-hyperpreterism, hyperpreterism IS a different Gospel and a damnable heresy.

Here is an interesting statement from Todd Dennis’ site The PreteristArchive (a pro-hyperpreterist site )

JOIN EVANGELISTIC EFFORTS

CD Evangelism effort - Opportunities to spread the eternal gospel seem to have never been better. Preterist Christians are infecting networks world-wide with the optimistic Preteristic message of world ambassadorship.

***

Yes this does not mean explicitly that there is an admission of another Gospel, but I do think, in conjunction with the tenets of fulfilled eschatology (and eschatology is about the redemption, which is the Gospel) it is an implicit acknowledgment of such.

Another statement says:

CD Image Available for Purchase - The 600+ megabyte-sized .iso CD image file of PreteristArchive.CD is now available for purchase! This allows evangelizing Preterists (or those facing heresy charges) wonderful opportunities.

****

Notice the juxtaposition of “evangelizing preterists” (ugh) with “facing heresy charges.” Just who are these hyperpreterists “evangelizing” - again, I understand that the statement could easily refer to two different events - evangelizing to nonChristians and facing heresy charges but the proximity is very interesting considering that the CD in question is being encouraged to be uploaded to free servers and distributed to libraries.

Todd is a decent guy and has done a lot of hard work. I can only pray one day it will be for the true gospel and not a false one. Well this site then also exists to assist when hyperpreterists are facing heresy charges - to prove them. Hyperpreterism cannot be allowed to exist in Christian churches and hyperpreterists need to repent and join the brethren in confessing, “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh.”

My tagline of “100% percent heresy-free” is, one, meant to be taken in humour. But on the serious side it means no promotion of heretical eschatology (what is it about hyperpreterism that makes them more hyperliteralists and decontextual than the most goofy dispensationalist???) - that is what it is free of. That also is what my statement that I will not link to any heretical sites means. Any time that there is any question about any author I place a disclaimer. I did this with David Chilton and I did it with Milton Terry as I always have. Also in doing my more thorough articles, in order to properly credit authors, I have linked as reference points to David Green’s site.

The latest attempt at molehill construction and straw-grasping is that I link to Mike Blume’s eschatological articles with the insinuation being that I don’t think a denial of the Trinity (Mike is Oneness) is heretical. I absolutely think it is, thus the disclaimer. I also link here to articles written by atheists, and post those disclaimers.

The denial of the Trinity is a greivous heresy. We don’t allow Oneness adherents to post in Christian-only areas on TheologyWeb. Roderick should also note that I have an article by David Green on my site, a hyperpreterist, with the appropriate disclaimer.

This particular screed has to be one of the silliest I have ever heard. But there you have it. Oneness is heretical. You will never find a pro-Oneness article on this site. Hyperpreterism is heretical, you will never find a pro-hyperpreterism article on this site. However, if those authors write other material that can edify the orthodox I will use it. I happen to think that is a way to treat the ideas and intellects of others with dignity and recognizing that I do not have to, as a knee-jerk reaction, dismiss everything any person who disagrees with me on orthodoxy has to say. I take that as a matter of personal integrity, and when it comes to personal integrity, I gladly suffer wrong and derision. One thing I have learned in life is that when there is no argument to be made, an opponent will pick on the slogan. On TheologyWeb, when a member is being shown the door, he inevitably says….. “Ha! I thought you guys debated theology seriously!!!” In my professional life I work in insurance defense, and I cannot tell you how many times I hear something to the effect of “THAT’S not being a good neighbour!” (as an example only)
For those of you intested in the Trinity and my work on the Trinity, I have written an article that has helped to pull some Arians out of the pit. It is located here:
Christology from A to Z
here is one on Oneness in particular (since Oneness is actually Sabbellian and not Arian)

Oneness Pentacostals and the Trinity
My friends know the great lengths I have gone through to keep Oneness out of the realm of “just another acceptable Christian belief.”

As far as granting hyperpreterism the indice of credibility as a “Christian” debate topic….. shun profane and idle babblings. I know my goal and calling. My ministry is to and for the orthodox no matter which hyperpreterist that does not please. Others have more than answered every hurl that has been thrown. While I am flattered that I am the most popular girl at the dance, my True Love commands my obedience. Before my own Master I stand or fall.

Now to the personal part. Thank you Roderick and Michael for your denouncing of evil behaviour. I would defend both of you, and you may call in that promise, if anyone ever did anything like that to you. Actually a double-thank you to Michael. That expression of sorrow for the harassment that was directed at me was probably the nicest thing you have ever said (and I don’t mean nice in a honey sugarplum way, I mean nice in a recognizing when an evil thing is done even when it is to someone with whom you disgree).

And Roderick, I understood the flower. I laughed. But I also asked and let you know that the issue of the past bad behaviour of certain persons is over and resolved mutually. I certainly cannot stop anyone from bringing it up, but the parties did voluntarily cease and did the right thing.

And yet more…

It is simply amazing to me hyperpreterists still do not grasp, or perhaps simply refuse to grasp, the point that I am making. For instance on Roderick’s site (The Kingdom Come), a poster going by the handle of Alexander Rodriguez stated that I simply defend my right to call Hyperpreterism a heresy if and only if my view is true. He then goes on to state that such a claim is basically trivial and doesn’t deserve defending since it is patently obvious. That is not the point. I don’t mind repeating this point over and over and over because this in fact is the one point that hyperpreterists do not want to the orthodox Christian world to wake up to.

Hyperpreterists do not believe that they should be shunned or excommunicated or denied fellowship. This is by far and large a fact. Why do they feel that way? It is because they feel that their view is one that is acceptable within the wide variety of Christian thought and that Christians who disagree with them should still be able to extend the right hand of fellowship to them as Christian. That is exactly the point I am examining. Not every single view I think is right do I think I have a right to call those who disagree as promoting heresy. The question to be asked is whether or not Hyperpreterism should be tolerated in our churches as just another Christian eschatological view. That is the question that I seek to ask and have answered.

My question is not whether or not we can call hyperpreterism a heresy if orthodox preterism is correct, my question is if orthodox preterism is right what are the possible options for viewing hyperpreterism? A good analogy for that is in such a debate as infant baptism versus believers’ baptism. I hold to believers’ baptism. Now, once holding that view and encountering other people who claim to be Christians that hold to infant baptism, I have to decide whether this is something for which Christian tolerance should be practiced. What that means is that we can both co-exist within Christian fellowships and in intimate fellowship with each other even though we disagree because it is not the sort of disagreement that undermines or changes the very heart of our faith. This is not so with hyperpreterism. Hyperpreterism denies essentials of the Christian faith and boils down to an entirely different Gospel.

Therefore, my argument isn’t something circular as whether I can call hyperpreterism heresy because I believe hyperpreterism is heresy, my point is that coming from all of the facts that the Orthodox hold in common, then what is the logical conclusion as to the status of hyperpreterism. This is in fact the issue. It is the only issue. At one time I thought Roderick understood this issue, but in later writings I see that he does not. David Green most certainly does understand it. David Green has stated that if my view on eschatology, not on whether or not hyperpreterism is heretical, is true then hyperpreterism is heretical. The argument may be somewhat nuanced, but is really not that difficult. One can not at all meaningfully attempt to interact with that point if they can not even demonstrate that they understand it.

The name game continues… a major hyperpreterist site (which still has the totally misleading and ill-conceived Ken Davies quote on the updates page) has decided that “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are indeed no longer appropriate. Their new terminology? Historic preterist and modern preterist.

First the good….

On one hand, now at least other major hyperpreterist, Todd Dennis, is implicitly conceding the point that what “preterism” has historically meant is in fact what my position holds – as explicitly conceded by Roderick Edwards and David Green. It further concedes that hyperpreterism is indeed the new kid on the block. That is all completely accurate.

So in that aspect, the usage of “historic” preterism is a great step in the right direction, and I compliment Todd Dennis for that move.

Now the bad and the ugly….

To call something “modern” as opposed to “historic” implies that one view is simply no longer around or is somehow “outdated.” This is still the silly semantical games (and yes I have finally started my article on this issue) that continue. The fact is that “historic” preterists are alive, kicking, and greatly increasing in number. I have seen in my own experience the hyperpreterist community remain fairly stagnant in its growth when I stopped to actually consider the issue. While it is indeed true that an Internet search will turn up more hyperpreterist entries than “historic��? preterist ones, a quick glance shows that the huge majority comes from only two sites. It is further illegitimate to judge numbers of adherents by Internet searches especially when dealing with a movement that is infamous for its disproportionate vocal presence and has been characterized by such authors as Kenneth Gentry as particularly single-minded about this issue as a whole with it consuming their entire focus with a cultic zeal. Of course while this is not necessarily true for any specific individual, it is overwhelmingly true for the hyperpreterist presence on the Internet.

What is my suggestion? If one is going to use “historic” preterist, I would suggest that it be paired with “full preterist.” I am not at all entirely in agreement with that terminology either as obviously I believe that hyperpreterism is indeed a fully accurate label and “full preterism” a self-flattering one, I don’t expect many hyperpreterists to use “hyperpreterism” – that is just realism. So for Todd to move more in the right direction in a way that he likely could himself accept, I would highly suggest “historic” and “full.” “Modern” is nonsensical at best, and completely misleading at worse. I give him props for the move made so far… and I encourage him to move it more accurately.

Now there is a new spin on the language wars that unfortunately is coming from Roderick Edwards and his site for whom I have respect and continue to have respect and good will towards for being much more upfront about issues than other hyperpreterists (along with David Green, and I would add Mike Beidler – hi Mike, long time no talk!). This new PR spin is that the “emergent” preterists are the true hyperpreterists (despite the fact that the label “hyperpreterism” has existed for decades with a pretty specific definition). This too is revisionist and totally ignores the whole REASON why hyperpreterists are designated as such. Now, while the universalist-leaning hyperpreterists may be MORE hyper in their preterism, the fact remains that the line from orthodoxy to hyper was crossed long ago by the whole lot of them, and those hyperpreterists that are taking advantage of the downward spiral of some of their group to paint themselves as non-hyper, are still squarely and utterly across the line. Their heresy is not made more palatable by the fact that there are those who not only hold their heresy but even more to boot. This is called “perfuming the hog,” (the “hog” being hyperpreterISM not hyperpreterISTS) and it doesn’t work.

Here is where I think the problem lies…. Hyperpreterists, for whatever reason, simply do not grasp the depth of their departure from the historic faith, and therefore fail to comprehend the irrevocable division that exists. No matter how bad the “emergents” get, or how whacky the “universalists” get, the yawning chasm is still there between those who are the more conservative element and the orthodox, and it cannot be bridged as long the future bodily resurrection is denied (which IS denying the resurrection). To expect the orthodox to do so is to expect them to disregard their own beliefs and faith and open the floodgates to apostasy (the fact that there are some orthodox who have sold out the historic faith in this regard does not lessen the fact one whit). This isn’t about any hyperpreterists we hate, but about the faith we love (as expressed by Dan Trotter). To deny that the dead are raised (and “raised” MEANS something specific) is to deny that Christ was raised. It is at his heart another Gospel with reductionist redemption, and we already have our marching orders when it comes to that.

When I use the word “admission” I do not use to mean that the person doing the “admitting” has given up the ghost. I do use it to mean that something is candidly admitted, which others in a group deny or obscure, that may not be entirely flattering to the group but is honest. David has done this before for which I have commended him. He has done it again on his Yahoo mailing list.

In the olden days (1800’s), a “preterist” was a person who saw the book of Revelation (and maybe some other passages and prophetic books) as mostly or wholly fulfilled. I think that we “heretical preterists” have been doing a fine job of changing the usage of the word. I know it irks the old-school “preterists” today (Gentry, Mathison, et al) that they’re increasingly being perceived as merely an inconsistent version of us.

I don’t concede his statement on such a thing being relegated to the 1800s, but that is not the point I am fixating on, it is David’s admission that hyperpreterists have changed the usage of the word. IOW, they have hijacked a word that meant something else. That has been my whole point. I refuse that hijacking, and so should you.

As far as being irked, semantical hijacking is irksome, agreed. At least David is upfront that such is exactly what has been going on. Something I have been saying for a few years now.

I had earlier commented on some items of concern that I had considering the way some hyperpreterists were attempting to cash in on the emergent church movement. At that time it was mentioned that Brian McLaren had allegedly (I only use allegedly because I have not personally confirmed it though I do have from a credible source this is the case) expressed sympathy for the hyperpreterist cause. Now I have read an interview with Brian McLaren by a well-known hyperpreterist which didn’t seem to be to be entirely candid about what exactly the issues are – and it is exactly this type of soft-pedaling and lack of forthrightness that I have been extraordinarily critical of in the hyperpreterist camp.

Specifically Brian was asked:

Do you feel that placing the Parousia of Jesus and the terrible events of the Apocalypse in a first-century context is important to how Christians today approach the various aspects of life, such as economics, environmentalism and involvement in politics?

Now to me this ignored the raving pink elephant in the living room – because unless one was paying very close attention to nominatives, nothing was said that is particularly heretical, at least in my book. It is only if “the Parousia” is defined as the Second and Final Coming that there is an issue, and there is absolutely nothing heretical about the very historic position of placing the Great Tribulation in the first century. In fact, even labeling that event “the Second Coming” does not make one a heretic, at least to me - it makes one very sloppy with terminology, but from what I understand there have been orthodox persons who have made this error. It is not the return that holds the consummation of the Gospel but the events concurrent with the return – the resurrection. And oddly enough it seemed to have slipped the interviewer’s mind to ask Brian what he thought about placing the resurrection in the first century, and I just find that to be more than a bit cagey about the real issues at stake, and unfortunately not an uncommon hyperpreterist promotion tactic.

Time will tell if the emergent church movement will be successfully exploited by the hyperpreterist cause. The irony is that a great deal of the “generous orthodoxy” promoted is frankly liberal theology and in times not so long ago, hyperpreterists sold their wares as the antidote to liberalism. In my peer circles I am very generous in my orthodoxy, but not so generous that I bankrupt the faith. That is exactly what is at stake.

Once again, hyperpreterist David Green has earned my respect as he has also noted this trend and roundly criticizes it:

Brian McLaren isn’t failing some arbitrary “litmus test” created by some “mean-spirited” “fundamentalist” preterists. He is denying the very root and heart of the biblical Christian faith, and calling for others to do the same. Nevertheless, he is praised, honored and embraced as a theological hero at [the site and interview I am referring to above - a major hyperpreterist site and interviewer - DDW]

David Green doesn’t fall for “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” claptrap. If any hyperpreterist, who so long have claimed that only their heretical interpretation saves Christianity from liberal theological criticism, praises this kind of “emergent” stuff, it is hypocritical to the core, and is basically using anything, no matter how much it contradicts other principles, that may advance one’s cause. David Green refuses to do so. But then again David Green has always had the backbone of his convictions in my point of view. He doesn’t sugarcoat or self-pedal. I wish all of my theological opponents could be that way - the “orthodoxy” that doesn’t exclude anything isn’t worth anything but is a desparate grasp at acceptance.

postscript: Parker also nails this one - he is fast becoming one of my favourite posters on issues - for example he said:

How does Emergent keep believers from leaving a faith that has no definition and no agreed-upon tenets? What is the “faith” that they agree to share? If it is a faith without any definitions, it is no “faith.” If it has definition, then it is dogmatic. I gather that the “faith” of Emergent members is an expressed hope that “evangelical rejects” might fashion for themselves a new Christianity practiced by no one in past history–a Christianity without doctrines or organizational structures. (Won’t endless “dialoging” eventually just wear out?)

He shoots. He scores. Ouch.

For a while now I have taken note of an admirable admission from David Green as follows:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

It has been implied that I have misused that quote or misrepresented David Green in my use in some manner. I absolutely have not. The larger context is a discussion/debate between preterist Keith Mathison, and hyperpreterist David Green.

All that my use purports to represent is that David Green conceded that if Keith Mathison was correct in his eschatology, then David Green holds to damnable doctrine.

Read my use. Okay. Now read the original statement. Did I misuse it? Absolutely not. David Green conceded a point that other hyperpreterists avoid like someone giving away a syringeful of malaria. Now I am not the only one to notice this. David Green for some reason thought that sending me this link would somehow show that I misunderstood him. Strange. But much to my interest, I was not the only one who noticed Green’s glaring, and refreshingly honest, admission. This is from the link David sent me:

ANONYMOUS: I want everyone to know that you were forced to concede a MAJOR point to Keith Mathison. In your article Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds, you originally said:

And guess what? Preterists are at variance with the message that the Church has preached throughout history. And since the historic message that the Church has preached throughout history ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be the damnable doctrine, guess where that irresistibly puts preterism? OUTSIDE the true faith, and in the garbage heap of damnable doctrines! By your own words, preterists are damned. Case closed! Thank you for thoroughly obliterating preterism for us, Dave! With enemies like you, who needs friends! LOL!!!!!

Preach it brother! (if anyone knows who this person was, please send them my way, I would love to speak with them)

David responded with (and I will interject my comments):

MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughts. I’m glad that you’ve gotten so much enjoyment from my exchange with Keith Mathison. With your indulgence, I would like to clarify two points.

I think that you and Keith Mathison and I all agree that according to II Tim. 2:17,18, IF futurism is true and the Resurrection has not yet happened since the time that Paul wrote II Tim. 2:17,18, then preterism is indeed — in the words of II Tim. 2:17,18 — “ungodliness,” “gangrene,” a deviation from the Truth, and a Faith-overthrowing doctrine. If the Resurrection of II Tim. 2:17,18 has still not yet happened, then preterists are certainly heretics.

Thank you David! That is ALL I was saying, and it is accurate to what you said.

I think most or all preterists not only have the “guts” to admit this, but do admit it. This is not a new revelation among preterists.

David, you may hope so, but reality doesn’t bear you out. You and John McPherson are the only two that I have ever had candidly admit this conclusion without a song and a dance.

More importantly though, you have missed or ignored the other half of the argument, which is the key point:

Okay it is here that I think David thinks I have misrepresented him because I did not mention the other half of the argument. First David would be incorrect as my original blog on this back at the old preteristlist did in fact mention the second half of the argument, but he would also be incorrect for the second point is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. Here is a summary of David’s second argument:

If futurism is true [and David would classify that as every other view], then hyperpreterism is indeed a damnable doctrine; however, the converse is not true. If hyperpreterism is true, then futurism is a serious error, but it is not a damnable doctrine.

So what? What does that have to do with my point or even the point of the anononymous correspondent? Nothing.

However, I will say that David is wrong. If hyperpreterism is true, all other views are indeed damnable doctrines. This is one reason why the hyperpreterist camp NEVER wants me to apostasize to their dark side - I would be brutally blunt and honest about all of the ramifications and expose the dishonest facade of the clamouring for acceptance as “just another acceptable eschatological view.” That is not true. David has admitted it. One thing though is shown by David’s concession (besides that David is honest) is that it exposes the rank hypocrisy of those hyperpreterists who claim to follow the Bible alone as their standard for doctrine for criticizing those who believe that the resurrection of 2 Timothy 2:17-18 is NOT past and thus obey the Bible in condemning such a view. And in praising those “futurists” who extend the hand of Christian fellowship to them when in so doing they are disobeying the Apostle Paul.

If preterism is true, then historic, traditional futurism is not a damnable doctrine. If preterism is true, then the historic, futurist Church still preaches the true Gospel. The error of the futurist Church is not that it has rejected the Gospel. Its error is that it has failed to connect all the right Bible verses to the Gospel that she truly, authoritatively and effectively preaches. As a result of its exegetical displacement, the Church has appended an extra-biblical scheme of future events onto her true Gospel-message. This is not a fatal mistake.

David is wrong, and has a myopic understanding of the Gospel. Paul considered one’s view of the resurrection as part and parcel of the Gospel. To deny the alleged full redemption in AD70 is to deny the work of Christ and to deny that he has in fact conquered the last enemy. Eschatology is NOT merely an “end-times” view, it is the story of redemption, and is at its core Christological, which is why a totally Christological Creed, the Athanasian Creed saw fit to make the future bodily resurrection a point of salvational belief. It is a fundamentalist (in the bad sense) mind that cannot see the connection and anachronistically demands that there must be one verse that says exactly that as if the Bible writers were obligated to spoon-feed what should be obvious in the connections that are made.

From the preterist perspective, traditional futurism is a significant error to be sure. It has ultimate implications which, by the grace of God, the Church soundly rejects, but futurism is by no means a damnable error.

Any view that logically leads to damnable error is damnable error. Now people may be inconsistent and not follow the implications but that does not change the nature of the doctrine itself. Paul spoke about how a denial of the resurrection led to a denial of the resurrection of Christ, yet his audience surely affirmed the resurrection of Christ. To no matter, Paul showed them the outcome of their belief. And he would never tolerate that error in the body even if the adherents were ignorant or inconsistent about the outcome.

If futurism is true, then we are two separate houses and two separate faiths — but not because of any theological necessity, but only because of II Tim. 2:17,18 in a vacuum. This is the exegetical weakness of the case of those who anathematize all preterists.

Now David tries to backpedal as he once tried with Mathison. There is no vacuum - there is raw fact, and it is not only 2 Timothy 2:17-18 that is relied upon but also Paul’s condemnation of the denial of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. Don’t try to foist upon anyone that hyperpreterists do not deny the resurrection unless you are willing to be consistent and state that Mormons do not deny the Trinity.

Thus Keith Mathison’s position:

“I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning.”

This is misleading - David himself spoke of an extra-Biblical witness that cannot be comprised:

“The ancient ecumenical creeds have been deemed by all members of the universal Church — western, eastern, even Roman — throughout history as containing the fundimental rudiments of the true Gospel of salvation…. it means that the creedalists are correct when they say that we may not refute the elemental traditions of the Gospel which are contained in the creeds…We are not free to refute or nullify any of the cardinal elements of the Christian faith.”

Keith Mathison noted:

Now the problem is that throughout the remainder of this section, Mr. Green gives the impression that the whole discussion concerns nothing more than obscure eschatological issues - that nothing of an essential nature is at stake. Obviously he has to do this, or else preterism fails the test he himself set forth at the beginning of the article. But, there is an essential element of the Gospel at stake in the discussion - the doctrine of our resurrection. Paul in I Corinthians 15 tells us that the doctrine of the resurrection, Christ’s and ours, is absolutely fundamental to the gospel. Elsewhere Hymenaeus and Philetus are condemned for their errors concerning the doctrine of our resurrection. The resurrection is not a secondary negotiable doctrine. According to the witness of the New Testament, and according to the witness of the Church in the following centuries, the doctrine of our resurrection is a cardinal element of the Gospel. The Church fought with the Gnostic heretics for years, and a central element of their heresy was a denial of a future flesh and bone resurrection of believers.

In summary, my point is this. I would agree with Mr. Green that we cannot reject the teaching of the creeds on issues which are at the heart of the gospel. But the doctrine of our resurrection is a fundamental Gospel teaching. And most importantly for this response, full-preterism demands a denial of the Church’s historic doctrine of our resurrection. If this is the case, then full-preterism fails the test which Mr. Green outlines in the first section of his article.

and

So to use Mr. Green’s own test, either every branch the historic Church has been preaching a false gospel for over 1900 years (since errors regarding our resurrection are not minor errors), or full-preterism is preaching a false gospel. Since I agree with Mr. Green that it is impossible to say the Church has always and everywhere been preaching a false gospel, I am forced to conclude that preterism is preaching a false gospel. The point is that this is not merely a debate over secondary issues regarding the timing of eschatological events. The changes that full-preterists propose to make to the eschatological sections of the creeds have profound effects upon the soteriological parts of the creeds. Their changes drastically alter the doctrine of our resurrection, and the doctrine of our resurrection is a cardinal non-negotiable element of the Gospel.

And here is Mathison’s comment in context:

I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning. This would be the case if we shared the same creedal presuppositions, the same framework of orthodoxy. There is a fundamental difference of opinion about what the debate is about. The full-preterists are convinced that the debate is a debate among Christians over important but secondary doctrines. I am convinced that preterism necessarily demands a change in a doctrine which is essential to the Gospel. This means that we “creedalists” view this debate as a debate between Christians and heretics. That is why we have been forced to approach it in the same way the early Christians combated early heresies. The Scriptures simply do not belong to heretics, and any use of the Scriptures by heretics is a misuse of Scripture.

And concludes:

Mr. Green seems closer to understanding the problems involved in the debate than most other full-preterists I have read. I really hope that other full-preterists read this article because if they think through the implications of it, they will realize that they have to make a choice between full-preterism and Christianity.

Amen! Even so come Lord Jesus.

It is well-known amongst those that read my material that I have “respect” for David Green as a hyperpreterist who has the courage to face the implications of his position. If I ever embraced this heresy, that is exactly how I would be.

In a slightly different angle, there is another heretical preterist who goes by the name of “jfarley” on a heretical site that I also think has this backbone and doesn’t launch the “oh you called me a meanie name you must be unloving” log of balogna that is rampant amongst the heretical preterists attempting to fit into the historic faith they reject.

Here is the backdrop - jfarley was realizing the implications of his position makes the “gospel” that he believes in radically different than the “gospel” that a great majority of Christians do and urges his fellow hypers to apply Paul’s condemnation to them that preach “another gospel.” He is absolutely right from his perspective. I have been saying very similar things all along - if the hypers had the courage of their convictions and were not trying paint themselves as something they are not, they would split from such “error” as the rest of us promote and start their own separate “church movement.” I have always maintained that the failure to do so is theologically dishonest - while also maintaining that I do not believe the hypers to be deceitful in their persons, but that they have been ensnared by the devil who is the father of lies.

So back to the issue at hand - when jfarley was chastised for being “condemning” and “unloving” he responded:

Paul’s words do not trump anything that Christ said, nor do they contradict anything that Christ said. Neither Jesus nor Paul acted out of a lack of love for those who opposed them, but If I were to repeat some of thier words here, you can imagine the wrath that would be unleashed.

He is absolutely right. For such a group that says that they hold the Bible to be primary above “traditions of men” (and yet the very Bible they hold is the product of tradition), they shrink from the Biblical mandate of anathematization.