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

This is a repost. Originally posted on May 30, 2006

In dealing with and discussing hyperpreterism, I have found an analogy to be had with the abortion debate.  Many times debate over abortion scenarios will be posed and questions asked if abortion would be justifiable in such and such situation or at such and such point in time of gestation.  However, those arguments ignore the fundamental issue which must be answered before any other issues are examined, and ironically, determining THE issue makes the rest of the questions irrelevant.

Enter the hyperpreterist controversy.

Hyperpreterists believe/hold themselves out to be in Christian communion and part of the historic Christian faith.  They desire to have their voice heard as one more legitimate option in the eschatological debate right alongside of historicism, futurism, and preterism.  However, similarly to discussing the appropriateness of abortion, one cannot even consider the question of hyperpreterist communion until one first decides what hyperpreterism actually is.  And that is exactly what I do.  Taking the facts as we know them, that being the various positions that are undeniably within the historic Christian faith, we must then look at what hyperpreterism is to see if in fact they have a place at the debating table as another legitimate Christian view.  However, once we perform this exercise, just as with abortion, the very nature of the thing itself renders all other claims moot.  Thus, once it is determined that the unborn is in fact a human being, that means that things such as rape are not a justification for murdering that human being.  And with hyperpreterism it is very clearly and absolutely heretical in its very nature by the explicit teaching of NOT only the creeds, but ALSO the early Church Fathers, AND the Bible itself.  It is under all three tests the destruction of the Christian hope and an abominable heresy.  As once we see what hyperpreterism IS in relation to the views that it hopes to commune with, it is patently obvious that communion is impossibly broken.

To further the analogy, if the unborn is a human being, there is no justification, save the preservation of the mother’s life, for murdering it.  And if the unborn is not a human being, no justification is needed whatsoever for abortion.  Similarly if hyperpreterism is at its core heretical and completely antithetical to the other various Christian eschatologies and foundational orthodoxy itself, there is no argument or justification for giving it a voice in the Church.  If Hyperpreterism is not a radically antithetical to the Christian hope, no justification for giving them a voice is needed.  Hyperpreterist wish to skip this step and force the Orthodox into a presumably “Christian” debate when the doctrine isn’t Christian all.  Hyperpreterists have some serious “dealing with it” to do on this issue.

I am sure some hyperpreterist out there will wax hyperliteral once again and claim that I have compared hyperpreterists to abortionists.  Of course I have not. But it’s a heresy folks, just as surely as the unborn is a baby.

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.

In our Precious Moments version of Christianity we tend to think that we should all just agree to disagree and never, ever condemn a view if the person claims to be “Christian” and especially if they seem “kosher” and believe all the “right” things on other things such as inerrancy, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. But is that Biblical? A lot of the times, the answer is actually yes (minus our political litmus tests) - while many views may be in error, the H word is something that places someone outside the faith (in its strictest use).

This article was pointed out to me apparently because Paul’s condemnation of Hymenaeus isn’t mentioned - that is a glaring oversight on Blomberg’s part, because if Paul went anything when confronted with the teaching that the “resurrection is past,” it is ballistic. He called it a faith-wrecking gangrene.

Now, interesting, though, Blomberg states with regards to 1 Corinthians 15 that “and some disbelieve the bodily resurrection of Christ…” Now that is interesting - because Paul doesn’t explicitly say that, but that is the logical outflow of the teaching that he is contradicting, that there is no bodily resurrection of believers. Now of course those who deny that Paul taught a bodily resurrection of believers (which makes his argument nonsensical), but the fact is that IF he did, Paul here as well is making an issue of foundational significance. To deny the bodily resurrection of believers is to deny the bodily resurrection of Christ. Blomberg is right, he just skipped a few steps on the way to the conclusion.

Errors on the resurrection are serious. Heretically so.

Originally posted March 24, 2005

I was not particularly interested in all this Gospel of Judas hooha. Not until I saw the centrality of the issue of the resurrection and the way all of that ties in not only to discredit this “lost gospel” but to show how thoroughly gnostic hyperpreterist resurrection revisionism is. All of this focus on the first century allegiance to the doctrine of the resurrection (and the way His and ours are intimately related) is succor to my soul.

James White spoke today on his blog:

You might as well say a work written by a Buddhist or a Muslim is relevant to the definition of the Christian faith, for nothing is more definitional of Christian belief than the consistent monotheism taken without interruption from the Hebrew Scriptures, and nothing more central to the gospel than true resurrection.

Exactly. And one might as well say that a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness of Branch Davidian is a Christian if one is going to allow the hyperpreterist revisionism in the door. Nothing is more central to the gospel than true resurrection.  Denying the resurrection of ourselves (or Jesus - very few hyperpreterists do that, but some do deny His bodily resurrection, and those ones are IMHO very consistent then with their doctrine) is betraying the foundation of the faith.

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.