This is a great article that I really related to. Check it out.
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.
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.
