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

Or at least that is the core of the “modern” hyperpreterist resurrection of that ancient heresy.
Here - http://www.pfrs.org/preterism/debate_5.html - is an excellent article that demonstrates this fact quite clearly. Warner is a futurist who has done two things - demonstrated that hyperpreterism (he buys into the semantical nonsense of simply referring to it as preterism) is presenting a different Gospel and commits Christological heresy (something I have been saying all along) and the faulty arguments of Samuel Frost. Apparently Samuel in his debate with Warner attempted to call Warner a heretic when it comes to the Chalcedonian Creed. That is pretty funny to me considering that it slipped Samuel’s mind in his discussions with me that he denied multiples aspects of the Athanasian Creed, recklessly telling me that he affirmed it all except for the timing. That was not true. And the Athanasian Creed is a Christological Creed.

Interesting. Today I read an article by Samuel Frost in passing that mentioned me and actually accused us of getting along!!!!! (okay that part is true - as scandalous as that may be, we do get along) but then went on to say that my site has pics of Lucy Lawless scantily clad. Really? Now Samuel and I both live in Florida, and here it is not unusual for females to wear shorts. We are not talking Daisy Dukes, just shorts. The image of a fictional character (Xena - thus technically NOT Lucy Lawless anymore than show a picture of Luke Skywalker is posting Mark Hamil) I have on my site is not scantily clad by any means in the average everyday culture that Samuel and I both exist in. Now unless Samuel objects to the female leg as “scantily clad” (and insures that any female family member over whom he has any say never wears shorts) I think this says more about Samuel’s distraction rather than my site. I purposefully in fact do not choose screenshots that could be “scantily scad” in any kind of provocative way. In TheologyWeb in fact I photoshopped into an avatar additional covering wherein I thought there was too much skin.

I do have the plain text version for those who cannot handle the female leg. Please do use it if such causes you to stumble or think inappropriate thoughts about Ms. Lawless.

While writing this I just remembered that when my site had the graphic of the sculpture of the Archangel Michael stomping on Lucifer that I got a complaint that Michael’s loincloth was a bit too small.  To the pure all things are pure.

After the publication of my last entry regarding Tim Warner’s debate with hyperpreterist Samuel Frost - hyperpreterist Roderick Edwards wrote me and asked me to include a comment from him on my blog. I agreed to do so, actually agreeing with his comment up to a point, which I will explicate below. Before I do so, however, I want to say that my comments about Samuel Frost apply also to Roderick. He and I are on good personal terms, and he has proven to be a person of integrity towards me.

Here is Roderick’s comment:

“That means one of us is necessarily presenting a false Christ, and teaching a false Gospel. One of us is teaching the same message the early Church taught…”

THAT is an inaccurate dichotomy, as it is possible BOTH of you are presenting a “false Christ” & BOTH of you are “teaching a false Gospel”, and NEITHER of you could be “teaching the same message as the early Church taught” — you BOTH could be dead wrong.

Generally speaking, that is technically correct but it is profoundly a meaningless distinction. In a debate such as the one Warner and Frost had, the underlying presupposition is that one of them is right. Of course they could both be wrong, that goes without saying. But the entire point remains - they are presenting fundamentally different Gospels and faiths. In either event, the hyperpreterist “loses.” Such doctrine has no place in the historic Christian expression of faith. Sure the historic Christian faith could be wrong, but that is no comfort for those teaching heresy that wish to be considered a part thereof and accepted by such. It is impossible to do and remain theologically faithful to the Gospel.

Second, in order to be fair to Warner who was precise in his wording, again, he said, That means one of us is necessarily presenting a false Christ, and teaching a false Gospel. That is not a false dichotomy whatsoever when carefully read. One of them is NECESSARILY presenting a false Christ, and teaching a false Gospel. Saying that ONE of them is necessarily doing so does NOT preclude the idea that both of them are possibly doing so - all it does is show that it is absolutely necessary that one of them is, i.e. the two expressions are irreconciably at odds and BOTH cannot be right, neither can they co-exist.

With all due respect to Roderick, I think he jumped the gun out of an emotional response because he dearly wishes to be part of the recognized Christian faith. That is the purpose of casting out of the Church those who espouse heresy - that they may so desire to be back within the fold that they recant. And it is my utter desire that Roderick do so.

Tim Warner had engaged in a debate with hyperpreterist Samuel Frost. Samuel is a decent guy, and if a hyperpreterist has to be debated, I would recommend Samuel as person who does not have malignant intentions and has treated me with the utmost of integrity.

That being said, in my discussions with Samuel, we are brutally honest with each other, and as he will attest, I have forthrightly said to him, “Make no mistake about it Samuel, I am your theological (not personal) enemy.” Tim Warner from what I have read seems to have a similar opinion and regard (Samuel I have not read your whole debate with him, correct me if I am wrong until I can read the whole thing), and his conclusory statements are only something to which I can say AMEN TIM!!!!!!!!!!!!! PREACH IT BROTHER!!!!

Now it is quite possible that Tim would have very serious objections to my view as well. As I have said before, someone’s opinion of me or my views does not impact my opinions as to the validity of points they make. That would be a genetic fallacy.

So without further delay:

Conclusion:

Preterism presents a different “Jesus�? and different Gospel. Preterism’s “Jesus�? is not human at all. He did not atone for our sins “in His own body�? because His body of flesh was not an essential part of His person. Preterism eliminates “hope.�? In doing so, it removes the comfort that hope in the promises of God provides for those living through hard times. It also eliminates the incentive for holy living and the means of our perseverance. I can think of few doctrines that are as destructive to Christianity as is preterism.

I stated earlier that Sam Frost and I have each presented to you the reader a completely different “Christianity.�? That means one of us is necessarily presenting a false Christ, and teaching a false Gospel. One of us is teaching the same message the early Church taught, as evidenced in its fight against all the Gnostic heretics. The other is actually teaching the basic philosophy held by the Gnostics dressed in Christian jargon. You must choose. If you choose unwisely, it means your eternal destiny. Please choose wisely!

Choose wisely indeed. Jetison the consistent testimony of two thousand years in favour of the pope in the mirror in reckless arrogance for one’s individual opinion over the witness of the Church, or submit to how words were meant in their original context as the Church as a whole as consistency held.

A poster I do not know who goes by the handle of “slippery” made the following comment in a thread on a heretical preterist site where I was dubbed “Dee Dee the Heinous” regarding my phone call with Gary DeMar:

I find in no way that Dee Dee Warren was heinous. She made a point, and Gary Demar could have answered it quickly, he chickened out hiding behind the smoke screen, as to “what the topic is”, even though there are many times where a topic on a radio show gets diverted to other relevant aspects before getting back on course.

Even though Dee Dee the Heinous has such a fantasy-genre swords and dragons cool kind of ring to it, the above poster is absolutely correct. And not only do radio shows get off track, it was Samuel Frost who took the conversation in that direction contrary to the already stated desires of the host. Gary did not tell Samuel he would not answer because it was off-topic, he answered Samuel’s question, made a controversial statement, and then refused to define or defend it when I inquired. If Gary did not wish to discuss the issue, that should have been true for Samuel as well as myself; furthermore, Gary went on for a good deal of the rest of the show going way off-topic (meaning subjects other than Matthew 24), so that hound don’t hunt.

Now to conclude the topic of what Gary did or did not answer - the hyperpreterists were later claiming that he dodged on the issue of Daniel 12, when I had the contrary opinion, I thought Gary answered well. Notice, however, that this is a question that Gary answered AFTER my call, and wow, look at that, it wasn’t about Matthew 24 (it seems that it was only my question that was off-topic). However, I am glad he did answer that one and answered it well.

The fact is that there is a certain faction of hyperpreterists that like automatons just have to say something bad because someone opposes them doctrinally. I don’t have that mentality. I spoke favourably here of a person named Parker, he does not do so of me. I don’t care. Parker was still right when he was right, and boy was he right. I speak favourably of David Green, a hyperpreterist, as well as Todd Dennis and a few others.

The type of behaviour where an opponent must be criticized at all costs is characteristic of a cult-like mentality. Let me give a prime example:

While I was on the phone with Gary I figured that silly heckling would be going on, and I didn’t wish to be distracted, so I lowered my laptop screen. And by the time I got back to the text, certain comments were moved up beyond the viewable screen. Most of it was juvenile belly-bopping and burping, but here is one comment that shows the depravity to which some in this faction will dive:

brad_religion: dee dee is a rude whore

This person is not some infrequent stranger to the Paltalk hyperpreterist scene, he is one of the main players. What I been saying for years is proven true each day: everyone who strongly condemns this doctrine is attacked visciously. And now we see that misogyny is not out of bounds (since said person apparently also supports a site in which I am also called a b*tch and a frequent reference to bust size is made).

The fact is that there are somefactions in the hyperpreterist camp that will apparently stoop to any depth - this has been proven many times over. I am curious if Gary DeMar will still post at a site that promotes a harassment site giving out personal details and threatening to do more such as post home addresses and phone numbers, once already posting my work address, phone number, and boss - especially in light of the not-so-distant Paltalk murders, and even this same night Matt Slick saying he gets death threats, and you can’t be too careful. Oh and not to mention mocking people who are upfront about their own weaknesses for the purpose of ministering to others about psychological diseases that one has (and so ignorantly stating that OCD is a dissociative disorder - clue: it isn’t please get an education - the correct order of communication is to think before speaking otherwise your voice will be garbled by a foot-shaped obstacle that just happens to be in your mouth. Here is a good page for getting some understanding and to stop spreading ignorant bigotry about a significant portion (2-3% of the population) of persons who have certain disorders. I also have a slight lisp - maybe some of this faction can get some yucks out of that too. Too bad I’m not morbidly obese or have a club foot - that would be sheer hilarity. Thankfully my OCD is relatively mild these days once I became educated about the disorder. Depression is another matter, which comes and goes with varying levels of severity. The last severe episode was over five years ago, and I credit a miraculous recovery (within three months) to God (and yep that means that the “potent antidepressant” I mentioned (referring to FIVE years ago for a period of three months) that I am supposedly under the influence of now and that being bad, bad, bad was over more than five years ago - folks come on, at least learn to READ). I have since learned in doing research that it wasn’t particularly potent as anti-depressants go, I am just unusually sensitive to many medicines.

If any of you reading have any type of psychological disorder or think you may have - TALK to your doctor. Don’t be ashamed or kowed by opportunistic predators such as those who have targeted my transparency. I am open about my struggles because it has helped so many people who thought they were alone, or thought maybe they weren’t really Christian because Christians should never be depressed or have other disorders. Been there done that, ” If only you had enough faith…..” bunk. Sometimes God gives us faith through our afflictions.

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.

In a recent article, Propositions of [Hyper] Preterism (insertion mine), hyper-preterist Samuel Frost, wrote:

…We do not seek to ostracize, de-fellowship or break any relations with any members who are seekers of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom. It is unfortunate, rather, than many of our brothers and sisters have done just that…

There are several strongly begged questions in that paragraph, however, does this include:

Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Mormons?
Gnostics?

I have heard this same assertion from theological liberals.

For additional reading see the exchange located here