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

Posted by Dee Dee Warren, not authored by Dee Dee Warren.

(In order to protect the author from vengeful attacks by the hyper-preterists it is posted without identifying the author. The words in bold and italics are those of Samuel Frost from his review at the SGP website. The words in regular type are those of the author.)

Dee Dee Warren recently wrote an apology to me concerning a couple of things, and I entirely accept them. I accepted the one concerning Whitefield and my role there, although, I guess, I never admitted that I did. Anyway, I accept her apologies. I did not exaggerate my role at Whitefield seminary. I never taught there, and never claimed to have taught there. I simply helped to develop their Hebrew program based of off an already existing program.

It appears that at least one party is gracious and willing to accept responsibility publicly for misstatements. The other party is also willing to “accept them” (the apologies), and this is good. From later comments in this response to Dee Dee Warren regarding her interview on Iron Sharpens Iron broadcast, however, the acceptance does seem a bit disingenuous. It is also puzzling that whereas the SGP leaders and members agreed not to mention Dee Dee Warren and Roderick Edwards ever again on the website, that the Reviewer somehow forgot that agreement? Perhaps an apology is owed to the members of SGP and to Dee Dee Warren by the reviewer. (Note: Some SGP members have tried to be creative by stating that “those whom we agreed not to mention…” are really more disingenuous with this type of statement. The intent was identification of the individuals agreed to not be mentioned or identified. Please do not use such tactics, either agree not to mention them and keep your vow, pledge, or agreement before the Lord or identify them by name. Be consistent and true to your own words).

“Recently, Dee Dee appeared on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio Show, which was a fun fest for me.”

The Reviewer’s phrase ‘fun fest for me’ seems to be violation of the logical fallacy known as ‘poisoning the well.’ If so, the phrase would imply from the outset that Dee Dee Warren is somewhat incompetent as a debater on this subject. Hopefully, this is not the case. It would be good for all parties to pay heed to remember what Solomon writes, that a soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up strife (Proverbs 15:1). The Apostle Paul also warns us to be careful that we not think more highly of our selves than we ought (Romans 12:3).

The show’s host, Chris Arnzen, introduced her as “one of the foremost experts in the United States” – a title she refused to accept – rightly so.

Why is this assessment of Dee Dee Warren “rightly so”? Perhaps it would be better to have said that “she graciously refused that title demonstrating humility.” Such would have been a kinder comment and more Christian in character.

Chris also admits that Preterism is “growing in popularity.” Praise the Lord.

The “Praise the Lord” comment offered by the Reviewer seems to be playing to the home crowd he is writing this review for. At the same time it must be admitted that the hyper-preterism adhered to by the Reviewer and his group is foreign to the mainline creeds of the Christian church through the centuries, which gives one (among many) serious question regarding its credibility. The debate here is better seen as one between historic or classical preterists views on the visible second coming, bodily resurrection, and final judgment at the end of history (which have been accepted in the church for centuries) and hyper or neo-preterists views which reject the visible coming of Christ, the bodily resurrection, and the final judgment and no end to history (which are outside of the church’s creedal theology, historically and currently).

Now, as the program began, Dee Dee relates how the Lord specifically called her to help rescue poor souls caught in this damning heresy. She also mentioned Roderick Edwards and her teaming up with him to eradicate it.

The Reviewer is correct in calling attention to the fact that Dee Dee Warren called hyper-preterism a “damning heresy.” However, from the perspective of the history of church doctrine, she is right in calling it a heretical movement. Here Mrs. Warren is to be commended for pointing out the dangers of this non-biblical system of thought. It was the Early Church Father Tertullian who wrote: “If the resurrection of the flesh is denied, a prime article of the faith is shaken … He, therefore, will not be a Christian who will deny this doctrine” (210 AD, Volume 1, page 535 ANF). It should also be pointed out that Hyper-preterists do contend for the same goal of correcting errant eschatological teachings, only from their perspective. In particular the teachings of dispensationalism are on their agenda, as it should be. Nevertheless, their views on the resurrection and its theological implications do raise considerable issues about salvation. Clearly much of the Hyper-preterists movement has engaged in doctrine that is condemned by the Church and has been viewed in the past as damnable.

She affirmed herself as a “postmillennialist” and an “orthodox preterist.” This means that “most” of the NT passages relating the “coming” of the Lord are [something is missing here] A.D. 70. Of course, we could have fun right there, because this was NEVER the orthodox opinion of the “fathers”.

Actually the writer fails to take into account that the early church did adhere to the general eschatological principles that are found in the three millennial views. Granted that the fathers of the church did not espouse a ‘preterist’ view, however, let me state again that they did maintain the doctrines of a physical resurrection, visible and physical return of Christ, and an end to history with the second advent and final judgment by Christ, all of which are denied by the hyper-preterists.

Again, she brings up that we are Hymenaeans, and a “cancer” in the Church (but, she says, “David Green has been my friend for several years”. Huh? Paul: “Yea, that Hymenaeus, he’s a cancer and destroys the faith of some in the church, but, he is honest and has been my friend for years.” You can figure that one out.

This is an unkind comment on the part of the Reviewer. It would appear unwarranted to claim that just because persons differ on particular points in theology (even very important ones) that they cannot remain friends. More thought should be given to these matters before such statements are made.

Now, the meat.

Finally, the Reviewer admits that all that has been said up to this point has been of little real significance; he is correct.

She wants to make the case that Preterism denies the essential aspects of “Christology” by citing the Athanasian Creed (Symbolum Quicunque). I am puzzled over this. I almost know that Creed by heart. It is basically broken down into 44 propositions. 1-3 I have reservations about:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

One cannot help but wonder why the Reviewer has a problem with this creedal statement. First it should be known that the best estimate of the origin of the creed is about AD 500 [NB: this differs with the statement of Schaff cited below]. However, this creed is in agreement with the terminology that is used in the Apostles Creed “I believe in the holy catholic church” (note: the term catholic is not capitalized in that is only a reference to the “universal” body of Christ). The same terminology is found in the Nicene Creed which states: “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”. Historically this statement comes from St. Augustine. Augustine maintained that the true church of Christ, testified to by the Apostles in the Holy Scriptures (Ephesians 2:20), and by the Holy Spirit, is the repository of the true Gospel which is necessary to believe in to be saved.

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

Is there any other way to God but by Christ Jesus? Why does the Reviewer have reservations? This statement was taken from Scripture, which teaches that Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and that there is no other name by which men can be saved, but that of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity…

Does the Reviewer reject the biblical teaching that we worship only one God in Trinity? One cannot reject that doctrine which is essential to the Christian faith and be saved.

Now, what is meant by “Catholic faith” is debated, although Athanasius was a Catholic. The Problem is that Athanasius did not write this Creed. It was introduced in full form “toward the close of the eighth century or the beginning of the ninth” (Schaff). It doesn’t take an expert, then, to figure out what the words “Catholic Faith” meant by the eighth century.

What is not (generally) debated is that the Anthanasian Creed reflects Athansius’s teachings. Further, that the Reformation Church generally embraced, along with the Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglican Churches, the validity of this creed’s teaching as biblical. No one every debated what the phrase “catholic faith” meant. The reviewer obviously is mistaken when he writes the phrase “Catholic faith.” By using the capital “C” it gives the false impression that it means Roman Catholic. Moreover, when Athanasius lived (4th century) the Roman Catholic Church did not exist.

The final clause (44) reads, “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.” Does Dee Dee accept this?

She claims that she does, and in so doing is following the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. The Reviewer is mistaken again regarding the meaning of the “catholic church.”

Now, aside from the opening and closing damnations, I affirm entirely all 4-39 – the Christological sections. 40-43 reads:

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; 42. and shall give account of their own works. 43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. I don’t have to point out the obvious to our readers for where we would disagree. Be that as it may, I don’t think Dee Dee endorses the catholicity of this Creed, but I cannot see where she tries to make the case that eschatology effects the Christology of this creed. Strange argument.

In fact, Dee Dee does embrace the catholicity of this confession, and in so doing affirms her belief in the teaching of the Bible.

Next she moves on to consider other ancient sources, but doesn’t recall any of them except Polycarp. Now, Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna (mid-second century) who, as Irenaeus claimed, had communications with Saint John and with “those who had seen the Lord.” This actually works against Dee Dee, because Polycarp was not an “orthodox preterist” and neither was he a “postmillennialist”! Somehow, Dee Dee must have another standard by which to judge that the Catholic Faith is not able to damn souls who are not Catholic, and why Polycarp, according to Tradition, spoke with John, but wasn’t a postmillennialist or a preterist. What would that standard be by which she picks and chooses where the Creed is right and Polycarp is right, but where they are both wrong, too? Hmmmm. It is interesting to note, too, that Dee Dee claims she has never used the Creeds as an argument against us. But on this show, it’s one of the first things to come up, however feeble it was as an argument.

It is not the concept of “biblical preterism” that is at issue, for biblical preterism accepts the final judgment, bodily resurrection, and visible return of Christ. So did Polycarp, and most of the church fathers (Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Augustine, etc.). Once again, the Reviewer misses the point. He still misunderstands the word “catholic” to mean Roman Catholic, which it clearly does not.

David Green, my good friend and buddy, and together we are about finished with House Divided, a response to When Shall These Things Be?, is mentioned again, quoting his argument that we must be heretics if the Bible teaches that the resurrection has not yet happened. Of course, this has been pointed out to Dee Dee that Dave was not giving her a proof in a logical form. Ask David Green himself if this is what he meant.

Appealing to David Green here does not prove anything. The question is, “may one deny the resurrection at the end of history and still be orthodox? The church over the past two thousand years says NO! Here is the motivation behind the writings of Dee Dee Warren.

We are then treated to Dee Dee’s personal history and how this horrible doctrine nearly caused her to commit suicide. Now, I honestly do not want to treat this lightly. If a person was in such a state, then, psychologically speaking, there are more issues going on than just “doctrinal matters.” Logically speaking, misericordium (appeal to misery) is an informal fallacy. She knows this, too. I’ll let that one go by the wayside. She knows this, too. I’ll let that one go by the wayside.

Here the Reviewer has made a wise choice. In fact, he would have been better off if he had let this whole review go by the wayside. In reality, he is not capable of addressing the effects of unbiblical thought and its affects upon an individual. To claim that there are more issues than “doctrinal matters” is unwarranted.

Finally, with no phone calls to the program, she labels us as “bullying”, “vocal”, and “aggressive.” We use “unethical tactics” (I have a list of those from their side….but we will see where that goes as far as our behind the scenes talks).

It should be noted that the host of the show let everyone know that there would be no live calling and discussion by phone. One could call in and ask a question or e-mail a question or statement to the host. It seems that the Reviewer did just that, he emailed an ad hominem statement to the host. Further, we must ask why did he bring this issue up publicly if he intends to have talks behind the scenes? Then too, why is a list necessary? This may just be another instance of poisoning the well and playing to his readers.

I was waiting for my name to be mentioned. My bet was met. I am the “golden boy” of this group! Wow! A small lad from Indiana is now the “golden boy.” It gets better. I am listed in the top three “leaders”! Wait, wait…there’s more: “Samuel Frost is the most influential.” Put that in your pipe, Jason, and smoke it!

Is not Mr. Frost referred to as the “scholar” of the hyper-preterist movement because he attended a recognized seminary teaching Reformed theology? Does he not attach M.A.R. credentials to his name? Is he not one of the regular speakers at hyper-preterist conferences? Is it not natural, then, to consider Mr. Frost to be the best trained theologian of the group (a statement that has been made and not denied by Samuel Frost)? By the way, is Mr. Frost not at least one of the most influential? It appears he is trying to find something to criticize when her statement was not insulting, but in fact, flattering. The phrase “golden boy” is not inherently insulting but a common saying to speak of the champion of a cause or group.

She mentions Virgil Vaduva as a “Brian McClaren” foot kisser (he isn’t) and as anti-Reformed “as you can get” (he isn’t – that’s why I speak at his conferences – if anyone was anti-Reformed it would be Dee Dee, a card carrying Molinist that denies that God knows all contingent events).

In listening to the interview I do not remember that the phrase “foot kisser” was used by Dee Dee Warren. She did say that he would kiss the ground McLaren walks on. Hyperbolic statements such as that are not intended to be literal. However, being anti-Reformed is pretty much right on target.

Now about Virgil Vaduva. Here are his own words about who and how he fashions himself according to his personal web page: “I am an opinionated guy, but I also do my best to be generous; I have been learning the hard way how important generosity is, especially after realizing that I am unfinished, on a journey to grow, and be human, because only then I will need Christ - I am flawed, I am a hypocrite and constantly fail to live up to my own expectations. I am a philosopher who likes to study Mircea Eliade’s history of religion (you really need to research Micea Eliade to understand who and what he stood for), and a theologian who likes to expose un-popular facts about Calvin; I listen religiously to Steve Taylor (good humanist), and most of all I enjoy being in God’s presence, which is real, now, here on earth. It is His presence which has created in me a renewed love of nature and prompted us to embark on a new journey from riches to straw. Oh, and I am a Preterist (who sees a huge potential in the Emergent Church) and gun-carrying, tattooed liberal-conservative (depends on who you ask) Emergent Christian who enjoys smoking premium cigars. I am fascinated with Eastern Orthodox Theology’s realistic presentation of “heaven on earth” and the rendering of God’s Kingdom as a present eschatological reality, and I see a tremendous and very encouraging potential in the coming generation of Christians, especially in the western world.”

The Reviewer appears to have been mistaken in his assessment of Virgil Vaduva. One wonders if anyone at SGP ever checks out these reviews for accuracy? One cannot be Reformed and Emergent at the same time! They are logically contradictory to each other. Emergent is not even considered orthodox by Evangelicals and Reformed.

Notice that Virgil affirms; (1) that he liked to expose un-popular facts about Calvin; (2) that he is an Emergent Christian who believes in no absolutes; (3) that he is fascinated with one of the most religious humanists-spiritualists professors who taught at Chicago University; and (4) that he is fascinated with Eastern Orthodox theology. There is a serious misunderstanding of the doctrines of Reformed theology by the Reviewer if he does not see the anti-Reformed position of Virgil Vaduva. I think the statement by Virgil Vaduva speaks for itself.

She mentioned Don Preston, and Jason, and Mike B, and David Green. Good men. She mentioned how we bait people at the ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) conferences. She still doesn’t get that group (co-founded by Gordon Clark). They make you sign a paper affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture and the Trinity. No problems. I am a member. Dee Dee says that we use that to “validate” ourselves, or that ETS “endorses” us. I have spoken there, and I have never ever claimed that ETS “endorses” us. It “allows” us because we break no pledge. Simple. Another case of making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The Reviewer is correct that membership in the ETS requires affirmation of those two doctrines. Dee Dee Warren didn’t speak to that issue but rather the practice of setting up booths and distributing literature. Does Mr. Frost denies this is done? She also did not say that anyone claimed that ETS “endorses” hyper-preterism” but rather that the respected name of ETS is used to insinuate that hyper-preterist eschatology is within orthodoxy. I doubt that Samuel Frost has ever publicly stated anything about his eschatological views at an ETS conference. The members are well trained in theology and exegesis and would be most willing to confront him (it would be a hostile environment for him). The Reviewer is correct that ETS only requires adherence to two doctrinal positions, the inerrancy of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. However, ETS does not endorse any person’s view simply because they have addressed the assembly. They only endorse the two doctrines required for membership. The ETS is a place to debate and exchange ideas. That requires papers to be presented from all points of view as long as the presenter hold’s to biblical inerrancy and the Trinity. At the same time the Reviewer should be careful in dropping names and organizations which seem to lend credibility where there would be no endorsement. As a member of ETS I personally know that Samuel Frost did not address any assembly on his views of eschatology, thus if he implied anything else, it would be misleading. ETS would not endorse and most of the members would reject his doctrine as heresy. However, in the interview Dee Dee Warren was not speaking specifically of Mr. Frost nor did she claim any specific activity with the exception of setting of booths and mentioning the hyperpreterist presence at ETS conferences.

In conclusion, nothing was really said that proved preterism false.

This may be true (while at the same time neither was anything said by the Reviewer that proved Dee Dee Warren to be wrong), but just because Dee Dee Warren did not say anything that proves hyper-preterism to be false does not mean that it is not false. The Reviewer has committed the logical fallacy of attempting to come to a positive conclusion from a negative statement. He should also be reminded that just because one believes his position to be correct does not make it so! Again we would remind the Reviewer that since the church of Jesus Christ has for the last two thousand years never taken the position of hyper-preterism (and in fact has taught against it), it would surely indicate that hyper-preterism is (at best) on very shaky ground and (at worst) many be a damning doctrine as they teach their perspective on end times.

Maybe a couple of Scriptures (Hymenaeus) were mentioned.

Perhaps everyone should listen to this interview. I would recommend that you hear it in its context before you accept anyone’s word, including mine. There were more than a couple of passages mentioned and since the Reviewer had the opportunity to listen to the recording as many times as he wished, he could have confirmed that instead of using the term “maybe.”

Most of it was personal experience (which really counts for nothing, any more than my personal experience with grading papers in Hebrew, being a member of ETS, or the like).

The Reviewer is correct here, i.e., that personal experience does not prove anything to be true. Scripture alone has a monopoly on truth. Then again, we should state, the ‘right interpretation’ of Scripture has the monopoly on truth. Anyone can claim to adhere to the Scripture, however, such a statement without clarification and context means nothing. The Reviewer is incorrect that most of the interview was personal experience. Once again, he could have reviewed the recording to confirm this.

There was the charge that this doctrine “twists the character of people” so that they become “more sneaky.” Not quite sure what that means. Regardless, it’s ad hominem and doesn’t matter.

Is it an “ad hominem” argument? If this statement was being used to prove hyper-preterism false, it is truly an “ad hominem” argument. Why? Because Christians who adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity have at times committed unbiblical and sinful acts, however, their ethical practices do not disprove the doctrine of the Trinity. What it does bring into question is the sincerity of the individual’s Christian faith. However, if it is an observation concerning unethical acts by professing Christians that is another issue, and that would remove the statement from being an “ad hominem” argument. Thus the Reviewer’s statement that it “doesn’t matter” is erroneous and should matter to any professing Christian. From my understanding, Dee Dee Warren has documented some egregious behavior by some hyper-preterists.

See ya around….

Do the work as a Christian in these matters and draw you own conclusions. That is the duty of every Christian. Follow Christ and His Word, and those who are appointed to teach the truth as called by God and have faithfully taught the purity of the Scripture concerning these matters. Reject what is false and embrace what is true and good according to the accepted historic Christian faith and practice.