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?