John as it turns out your issue isn’t with me, but Mike Sullivan a coauthor of “House Divided”.
In an exchange assisting a beleaguered “orthodox reformed evangelical” apologist (?) we’ve already gotten Sullivan to back peddle away from the following claim which is recorded for posterity in “House Divided” found on page 107.
Leaving for the moment pointing out Sullivan’s inability to comprehend the “analogy” of Scripture, we thought it might be enlightening to the reading public to review another example of a “House Divided” misrepresentation. On page 114 Sullivan claims,
“Old” Guard, here are a couple more thoughts for you to use if and when you ever get around to defending the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. At some point you are going to have to crack open Scripture and actually deal with the text so when you do you may want to consider the following approach. In reviewing your buddy’s position in “House Divided” it seems he has a real problem with the position Dr. Gentry and Dr. Mathison hold regarding Paul’s views as represented in 1 & 2 Thessalonians. It seems to me the question to you dealing with the parallel between Matt 24:30, 31 and 1 Thess 4:15-18 is built on his exception to the position Dr. Gentry and Dr. Mathison take regarding the “day of the Lord” and the “second appearance” of Christ. In the book your buddy claims,
It appears the “old” guard isn’t fairing to well. In a recent exchange the “old” guard has clearly dropped the ball in defending the orthodox position. Evidently recanting of hyperpreterism isn’t much assistance in pointing out the logical fallacies of the heresy or the poor argumentation of the heretic. Before the “old” guard moves on, they may want to consider engaging the heretic’s argument. Allow me to offer a few suggestions.
Does the arrogance of these guys ever cease? In another post one questioned Dr. Talbot’s state of mind (typical M.O.), but this one ever shocked me:
In a message dated 7/26/2009 10:58:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, skeptic218@… writes:
Hi Mike,Speaking of Critics… I wonder how well Kenneth Gentry is sleeping at night… now that he has a copy of the book?
I’m wrapping up my review of the AV conference and will cover some of that. In a nut shell, he is nervous and scared so his methodology (ad hominem and whining) that he used in WSTTB hasn’t changed at all - it got worse :).
In Christ,
Mike
When someone first encounters hyperpreterism, one of the first things they experience is that the “movement” is highly factionalized. There seems to be no unified expression of hyperpreterism, yet four things that identify a person as a hyperpreterist are:
BASIC HYPERPRETERIST BELIEFS
Now, a person need not believe all of these points to be considered a hyperpreterist, though the more of the points they believe the more “consistent” they will be. Read the rest of this entry »
[context is one of Mike's many, and sometimes downright bizarre, open letters]
Again, your views and exegesis (avoiding the analogy of Scripture) make no sense to any other eschatological paradigm except the one you are constructing (without embracing Biblical Preterism–Gospel Eschatology).
Mike freely admits that this is foundational Gospel material.
Roderick wrote:
“…many hyperpreterists came directly out of dispensationalism into hyperpreterism & thus they know nothing of Christian history or historic theology.”
This is a deceptive statement and a comment. Therefore my guess is that it must have been made by Roderick since that is all he is ever capable of producing - along with gossip, slander, and provoking Christians. Unfortunately for Roderick and that group, they know nothing of exegesis.
Mike
O Rly? Did you think that way Mike when he was a hyperpreterist or is it just people who disagree with you that are idiots? As par of “that group” you have LIED against me. Disagreeing with my exegesis is not the same as your slanderous LIE that I know nothing of exegesis. I have written a nearly 150 exegetical commentary that has received commendations from reputable men. Since I don’t deal in that commentary much with anything touching hyperpreterism, I suspect you would agree with 90% of it. Liar. Slanderer. Go pull the beam out of your own eye before obsessing on Roderick and “that group.”
David, you know this is a lie both about me and Roderick. You worked with Roderick in the past. Are you going to let Mike get by with that slander against your friends?
Mike quoted WorldWithoutEnd as saying:
Someone can step from Postmil into Preterism but never from dispensationalism into preterism for to me, in my most honest understanding, it would seem impossible.
Well WWE, think it impossible no more. I came flat out of dispensationalism into hyperpreterism. I did go via the route of rejecting premill first with futurism close on the hills in second, but the amount of time was so quick as to be meaningless. I know of others. It happens when hyperpreterists infiltrate more sensationalistic dispensational churches such as the Vineyard or Calvary Chapel (out west particularly).
