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.

Very often it is claimed it is claimed by hyperpreterists that they do not deny the resurrection - knowing full well that they in fact do. When Group A believes Concept A by the name of Name A and Person B seeks inclusion in Group A but holds Concept B (which is opposed to Concept A) by calling it Name A, and claiming that they do not deny Concept A because they use the same name, but pour Concept B into it - well that is not honest to the real issues. On a superficial level it is corret in the sense that Person B has a doctrine by the same name and doesn’t deny that there needs to be a doctrine dealing with the issue, but on the real meaningful level it is utterly incorrect. This is the exact same word game that is played by some in Mormon circles who will say that they do not deny the Trinity. Of course they do! They are simply using the same name for an entirely differnent concept that is not possible to be harmoniously reconciled with the orthodox concept. These types of radical redefinitions and the unwillingness to be upfront with them is the mark of a cultic belief.

Originally posted March 4, 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.