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

At a certain heretical site, a hyperpreterist noted this with regards to a forum that (praise be to God) doesn’t allow the spread of this heresy in the eschatology section (just as TheologyWeb does not) and as NO Christian forum should.

I find that more people can easlierly read Preterist view in the eschatology section but God’s word is chained there by the bondage of creedalism which is nothing more then what Jesus warned about when He spoke of endtimes about people coming in His name and deceiving other. Only thing different though is that we are on this side of the age that was to come to the first century Christians.

It’s just one of those things in which you shake your head at the cognitive dissonance. Soooooo is this hyperpreterist actually saying we are still in the end times? Is this hyperpreterist claiming that we are false witnesses (and in that context - not Christian)? Now mind you, I could give a stick of butter whether this person is - I absolutely believe that if hyperpreterism is true, then those of use who believe in a future physical return of Christ, judgment, and physical resurrection of all are blathering heretics. No problem. Despite the pain in my lower back, I have more backbone to admit the logical conclusions of my position. Yet this is from the same site that shrieks like a peeved parrot when I or any other ole meanies calls them out for the heretics they are.

I have no problem doing so. Hyperpreterism denies the physical resurrection at all which is to deny that Christ was physically resurrected according to Paul and to deny the current enfleshment of Christ (as I have heard multiple hyperpreterists say - I believe one commented that I must believe Christ is “a meatball with a spook in it” if I believe in the current enfleshment of Christ. Such profane babbling is antichrist and should be cast out of any claim to Christian belief.

I remarked on some hyperpreterist spin regarding a new article by Dr. Edward Hindson called The New Last Days Scoffers in a previous blog. Though disagreeing with Dr. Hindson’s dispensational theology and lack of clarity in this article, he was absolutely correct in saying, “Extreme preterists, who prefer to call themselves “consistent preterists,��? hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. They view this event as the Second Coming of Christ and reject any belief in a future return of Christ. Thus, they deny a future bodily resurrection of believers and a literal return of Christ to earth. Extreme preterists believe we are already in the “New Heavens!��? Their view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.”

Recently Gary DeMar also commented on this article in two parts to be found here and here.

Gary starts off his first part with this statement, “Preterists teach that the majority of NT prophecies have already been fulfilled in events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” Notice that he does not say “all” - and in that he is absolutely correct. He then proceeds to say, “Preterism, which is derived from a Latin word that means past, has a long and distinguished history in the church,” and names some prominent. This is also absolutely correct. However, this article may be used by others as a bait and switch in that the incautious reader may not note Gary’s definition of “preterism” as the belief that the majority of NT prophecies have been fulfilled, and make the dangerous and unfounded leap that the radical redemptive redefinition of eschatology by the hyperpreterists ALSO has a long and distinguished history in the church and cloak a heretical view with the indicia of credibility. It doesn’t have such a history, and in the only areas the hyperpreterists can claim so is where they overlap with orthodox preterism. And it is the difference that counts. The two may be related, but like the alleged claim1 that men and monkeys have only 1% difference in their DNA, that 1% is the whopper.

In the second part though, it is disappointing that Gary did not do much to make the difference apparent - Hindson made the distinction quite apparent, which distinctions were not addressed by Gary. To the careful observer it is very noticeable that he nowhere mentions the resurrection as a past event but who are not reading carefully may be easily misled or confused.

[1] I am not an evolutionist and put very little credence in any such statements, this is used simply as a comparative illustration.

In a heretical preterist chat room, Thomas Newton was invoked with the extraordinary claim that Newton claimed that “there was NO distant event to take place.” The context of the claim was that this was strong support that their heretical preterizing of the “Second Coming” with NO future coming had historical and reputable support. However…..

….that is not what Newton said….

“Commentators generally understand this, and what follows, of the end of the world, and of Christs coming to judgment; but the words immediately after the tribulation of those days, show, evidently, that he is not speaking of any distant but of something immediately consequent upon the tribulation before mentioned, and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem.”(from Newton’s Dissertions on the Prophecies)

This caused me to look a bit further into representations made concerning Newton, and I note that on a major heretical preterist site there is published a debate between Thomas Newton and N.A. Nisbett which is falsely billed as “EARLIEST KNOWN PARTIAL PRETERIST / PRETERIST DEBATE !” translation: EARLIEST KNOWN ORTHODOX PRETERIST VERSUS FULL PRETERIST DEBATE!

Is that true? No. Nisbett (as later acknowledged by the owner of said site within the text itself) was not a full preterist. The bone of contention between Newton and Nisbett was whether or not this statement of Newton’s was correct:

“The consistence and connectionof the discourse oblige us to understand it, as spoken of the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; but in a higher sense, it may be true also of the time of the end of the world, and the general judgment. All the subsequent discourse too, we may observe, doth not relate so properly to the destruction of Jerusalem, as to the end of the world, and the general judgment. Our Saviour loseth sight, as it were, of his former subject, and adapts his discourse more to the latter.”

Nisbett WAS not a “full preterist.” He merely didn’t regard any of the Discourse to be relating in any shape or manner to the Second Coming and Final Judgment. I believe he is wrong in that, but may have been goaded by some unfortunate wording by Newton. Nisbett said, for example:

“They had not only an hope of an ample recompence of reward for all that they suffered, when Jesus should come to judge all mankind at the last day; but they had a near prospect of deliverance from their present troubles, when they would enjoy all the comfort and all the advantage of their unshaken fidelity and perseverance. The Apostle adds, as he had done before in the last verse of the preceding chapter, concerning the resurrection of the dead at the last day…”

He multiple times confessed belief in the future coming and future resurrection.

So here are the questions: why was Newton misrepresented without correction in the heretical chat room? why is the Newton-Nisbett disagreement billed as a debate between a “partial preterist” and a “full preterist.” Will that be corrected?

This is similar to a complaint that I had last year regarding a banner ad that stated “Theologians Who Believe the Second Coming is Past” which led to a listing that included persons who did not deny a future bodily return of Christ.

There was another incident in which a heretical preterist claimed that “Hank Hannegraaff writes full preterist books and then runs in the closet and hides.” Really? Pray tell what “full preterist” book that Hank wrote. I have the answer. Ready? None.

In a recent entry on a heretical site, this is claimed regarding this article by dispensationalist Dr. Edward Hindson:

In yet another article critical of Preterism, dispensationalist Edward Hindson, serving as Assistant to the Chancellor at Liberty University is criticizing Preterism reacting to none other than Hank Hanegraaff’s fictional book The Last Disciple. Hindson says that “Hanegraaff claims he is seriously considering it” — what is the subject of Hank’s consideration is not very clear — and that “Their [preterists'] view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.” So much for Hank Hanegraaff recent condemnation of Full Preterism as “heresy.” This has to be the first instance of a heretic calling another heretic (who called others heretics) a heretic!

What a mass of inaccuracy and inadequate comphrehension. One of the errors is minor - the other is the height of irresponsibility in order to make oneself feel better about rejecting the testimony of the Church for two millennia and embracing foundational heresy.

First the minor one, I quote:

Hindson says that “Hanegraaff claims he is seriously considering it” — what is the subject of Hank’s consideratin is not very clear —

Folks go and read the article, and you tell me if “what is the subject of Hank’s consideratin [sic] is not very clear.” Here is what Hindson said:

Sproul openly admits he is a “partial preterist�? and Hanegraaff claims he is seriously considering it.

Is that unclear to anyone?

Now the very serious error - the heretical commentator states this:

“Their [preterists'] view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.” So much for Hank Hanegraaff recent condemnation of Full Preterism as “heresy.” This has to be the first instance of a heretic calling another heretic (who called others heretics) a heretic!

This is without excuse. What is being claimed here is that Hindson condemned “partial preterism” as heresy in that article by THAT quoted statement. That is blatantly false. It is also blatantly irrelevant even if it were true. There are Calvinists who call anything nonCalvinistic heresy. The FACT that heretical preterists try to keep in the bag while claiming to let the cat out is that their view denies nearly universally accepted foundations of the faith, affirmed by Christians since the beginning, and in essence changes the entire faith of redemption and thus is a different Gospel and have explicit Scriptural condemnation. As much as they try to perfume the hog, the doctine still reeks of heresy. It always will. Notice once again, the DOCTRINE stinks, not the PEOPLE.

Now here is what Hindson actually said:

Extreme preterists, who prefer to call themselves “consistent preterists,�? hold that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. They view this event as the Second Coming of Christ and reject any belief in a future return of Christ. Thus, they deny a future bodily resurrection of believers and a literal return of Christ to earth. Extreme preterists believe we are already in the “New Heavens!�? Their view is not only ludicrous, but it is also heretical and places them outside the parameters of biblical orthodoxy.

WHO and WHAT did he call heretical??? EXTREME PRETERISTS! Not “moderate preterists.”

Why don’t people read things more carefully before trying to use it for their own agendas? It may very well be that Hindson would consider “partial preterism” to be heretical. But you certainly cannot claim that from that article, and most certainly not by the proffered quote. And if he did, it would not be because of the SAME REASONS that “full preterism” IS heretical, it would be for one of three main reasons that I can discern from the article in question:

1. He places an inordiante emphasis on Israel and opposes covenant theology

2. He may likely believe that “moderate preterism” leads to “extreme preterism” which is the main reason why some oppose it, NOT BECAUSE it denies any essential of the faith though he believes it denies important doctrines - as I believe futurism does, yet not being heresy.

3. He does not understand what “moderate preterists” believe about AD70 and thus is operating under a possible misapprehension.

When can we see a retraction of this claim?