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

I am once again attempting to listen straight through Dr. Bahnsen’s audio series on Revelation. I tried this before but my life got very busy, and I didn’t get very far. So I am starting again, and will post the nuggets here.

Dr. Bahsen warned against “flattening” our theology when we compare Scripture to Scripture and to remember that it is not always true that similar phrases mean the same thing. They can…. but they always sometimes don’t. This is of course part of the interpretative error of the hyperpreterists who shoehorn everything into an AD70 mold, which error is sometimes ignorantly propogated by my orthodox preterist brethren.

Specifically Dr. Bahnsen pointed this out:

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit….

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day….

“In the Spirit” in these two passages are not the same thing, but they are related.

In a related issue, J.A. Schep noted in his work The Nature of Resurrection Body:

As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word “sarx,” the term “body of Christ”? isused with different conclusions. It can denote Christ’s personal, literal body, in which he dies, rose from the dead, went to heaven, and will come again; the Church; and the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Though the three are related, they are not identical.

Gentry makes the same point:

Beyond the introduction of this matter relative to the philosophy of language, it is important to realize that A.D. 70 is not unrelated to the Second Advent. As the ending of the era of sacrificial rituals and Israel-exalting redemptive history, A.D. 70 is a pre-consummational type of the Second Advent’s history ending, consummational conclusion. Hence, the similarity of language and the mixing of ideas is justified on the basis of the relationship of type (A.D. 70) to antitype (Second Advent) [This phenomenon of type/anti-type is very common in Davidic/Messianic passages. In such references, what is said of the historical King David often applies to the Messianic King Jesus.]

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Originally posted March 26, 2005

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.

Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.

Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Yes, I am a bit silly.

I had promised Samuel that I would detail the second recent incident where I was misrepresented. On a heretical site discussing his non-refutation of my assumption-filed article, Samuel said:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Really?? First - did I EVER say that I “didn’t have time”? No…. here is what I said:

HyperPreterist Samuel Frost has written a “response” (at least he seems to think so) to my argument for the condemnation of the Neo-Hymenæan gangrene. All Samuel seemed to prove, however, are two things. One, he has a shockingly poor comprehension of exactly what my point is. Two, he is able to completely miss the point using more words than Don Preston. Allllright. Seeing how he is arguing something I already addressed five years ago, this is not my top priority.

Gentry speaks of his experiences in dealing with hyperpreterist rebuttals:

Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions – or die the death of a thousand emails.

Just because someone, even someone as well-known in the movement as Samuel, writes something they think is devastating, that in no means obligates me to drop whatever plans I have to deal with that - especially when in my perspective I already dealt with this with Don Preston.

So misrepresentation number one: I didn’t say I had no time, I said it was not a priority.

Now onto misrepresentation number two:

…a person who writes blogs and articles all day

Oh really Samuel? ALL day? You do realize that I have a full-time professional job, at times I work two jobs, I have a family, I have friends, and I have other interests. Where in the world do you justify that I write blogs all day? I don’t even write one blog a day. And articles???? How many articles have I written Samuel? In five years of writing on the Net I have written the following articles that I can remember:

Angels We Have Heard on High (on the location of Christ’s Reign)
On the “Soon” Return of Jesus
The Angry Womyn’s Revised Bible (co-author)
Is It A Duck?
Christ: The Alpha and Omega
Raising Cain and Abel

as well as my Matthew 24 commentary (which took years as I only work on it sporadically) and another article that has not yet been published, but is a version of “Is It a Duck”

I have various other pieces that were not officially articles and perhaps I have forgotten a few, but as one can see, I am hardly a prolific writer. I certainly don’t spend all day to such an extent that someone cannot believe that I am not all lathered up about answering Samuel’s piece.

Now on to misrepresentation number three:

Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Again…. really? NEVER? Is that your final answer? Let’s see. When Don Preston missed the point (and this is included in the original article which Samuel says he read) I said:

The above article is a defense of my use of the term “Neo-Hymenaean” for modern self-styled “full preterists” and the condemnation of such teaching as a potentially damnable heresy within the framework of MY starting presuppositions. In other words, for the sake of evaluating my consistency/justification in doing such, I have asked the reader to take my beliefs as true simply for the sake of argument to determine if I am then behaving correctly within that paradigm. I make no claim whatsoever in that article to provide a proof for my starting presuppositions so any squawking that I failed to do so is simply whistling Dixie. I make explicit the limitations of my purpose/goal for this article in this opening statement:

And in response to Don’s comment:

Further, it is so glaringly obvious that Ms. Warren is seeking to distract attention away from the timing issue. Her entire thesis falls to the ground if indeed Paul taught by inspiration that the resurrection was to occur in the first century. Did anyone notice that Ms. Warren had not one substantive word to say about this issue?

I responded:

The only thing that is glaringly obvious is that Don has completely missed the point and proceeds then to show off how completely he has done so. Did anyone notice that it was never my point or goal to prove my presuppositions that Paul did not teach that the resurrection was to occur in the first century? Did anyone notice that I also did not have one substantive word to say about the history of Delaware?

And in my original blog in which Samuel and I first discussed this, Samuel said:

Now, IF your version of “orthodoxy” is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?).

And (remember Samuel said I NEVER said what the point was) then I responded (after reiterating this point ad nauseam prior to this entry):

YES!!!!!!! That is the point Sam! Congratulations! You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy - YET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I HAVE NO CHOICE. Neither does anyone else in the orthodox camp. So your continual claims to be one of the brethren is not honest to the claims of the orhtodox. WE CANNOT accept you that way. We are not being mean, nasty, heretic hunters when we say so, we are only being consistent with our beliefs. So when will you acknowledge that? When will you present your view forthrightly that way?? When Sam???

and

You kept arguing something I was not even arguing Sam. Too bad it took over seventy posts in this blog for you to figure that out.

There are many more statements to that effect in that discussion. Thus, I did say what my point was and even used the language - “That is the point Sam!”

Here is Samuel’s statement once again:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

I think the only thing that is correct in his statement is that I am “a person.”

Samuel, I am a stickler for accuracy - and if you says grossly inaccurate things I will catch them. And if I am called on doing that (as in our prior discussion) I will correct myself if I did.

There is enough drama and controversy about things I actually do say and do - you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.