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

This is a repost: Originally posted on June 5, 2006 with updates on February 17, 2008

It seems like a great deal that goes on in this orthodox versus heretical eschatological debate hinges upon a war over terminology. That should not be surprising, since positions which do not have historical credibility or have other inherent flaws which would make persons reluctant to consider them off the bat, will often adopt terminology which either paints a better face on the view or cloaks it with the word that has historically “good” meaning so as to, intentionally or unintentionally, obfuscate the issue. First off, let me say, that there are many people who have fallen into this trap unwittingly. They don’t realize that they have bought into the language game, or do not realize its importance. I am not trying to read into anyone’s overt intentions here, but rather examine underlying motivations which are common with views that have problems with general acceptance, whether rightly or wrongly. For example, at this point in our culture, it seems backward and intolerant to be opposed to abortion. Therefore, many times, those of us who are opposed to abortion will refer to ourselves as “pro-life.” While that descriptive serves a purpose to a point, the fact is, in terms of this debate, we are very much against abortion. I don’t think that we should shy away from the label of “anti-abortion.” I don’t shy away from the labels of anti-murder, anti-racist, anti-child abused, or any number of things that I’m opposed to on moral grounds. I don’t need to pretend and or act as being against abortion is something that I need to cover in flowery language. Yes of course I am in favor of life, but in this particular case, I am in favor of life by being specifically against abortion. Abortion is the specific referent in the discussion, and that is what I am against. That is one example, though it doesn’t walk on all fours necessarily. I did use it, however, to demonstrate that I recognize the semantical gamemanship even with positions thatat are ones I myself hold.

Similarly, the homosexual movement has used the power flowery words to disguise deviant sexual practices. It is not “homosexual”, it is “gay.” I for the most part refuse to use the term “gay.” That word had such a wonderful historical meaning it has now been co-opted to mean something which is an abomination in the sight of God. I will not be a party to that.

So bringing us back to the eschatological discussion, sometimes hyperpreterists, and well-meaning non-hyperpreterists, will say that those of my eschatological persuasion (sometimes it even happens with those who are of my own eschatological persuasion) are simply a variant of futurist. This is boldly historically inaccurate and nonsensical. One cannot be considered a futurist simply because they believe that the physical, bodily return of Christ and the physical, bodily resurrection are future. This discussion is framed with an historical Christian context. ALL CHRISTIANS believe those things. They have been part and parcel of the historical foundations of the Faith for millennia. Things which are to be presumed in common are not items for which labels indicating diversity are created. Therefore, it is completely redundant to say within a Christian (historical) context that a person is a futurist with regards to these items. Those things are presumed and subsumed within the title of “Christian.” This would be about as silly as claiming that all Christians are preterists simply because they believe the Messiah has already come. All Christians believe the Messiah has already come, so there is no need to make a distinction between Christians on something that all Christians have always believed (the machinations of a vocal Internet cultic teaching notwithstanding).

Therefore, in historicalcontext, the terms “futurist” and “preterist” have been used to describe a person’s belief on the timing of debatable events, most notably, the Great Tribulation, and sometimes, the “coming,” that is described in Matthew 24. There are various levels of historical preterism, some of which do not take the “coming” in Matthew 24 to be a first century event and separate out the Great Tribulation from that language. I’m not one of those, but I recognize their existence.

This point becomes very patently obvious when one throws in the other players into this eschatological dispute - namely historicism and idealism. When those two terms are examined, it is very obvious that the issue in dispute is NOT the timing (i.e. futuricty) of the Second Coming or General Resurrection. It is regarding the timing and nature of the events leading up to that point. In orthodoxy, historicists are not those who believe that the event known as the Second Coming is manifested throughout history typically through the church age. That is preposterous. Similarly, in orthodoxy, idealists are not those that believe that the Second Coming of Christ is manifested ideally throughout the church age, but rather both of these views hold that this is a discrete and distinct event yet in our future. All these views hold the futuricity in common because that is a basic Christian belief. It does not make any of these views futurist, it makes them Christian.

Repost: Originally posted on May 15, 2006

As I am reading that watershed edition of The Chalcedon Report (God bless you Andrew Sandlin!), I ran across a beautifully crafted statement of the torture of the Reformers in their appeals for legitimacy:

Biblical Authority and Christian Orthodoxy by Rev. Andrew Sandlin (opening paragraph)

It is a mistake often made by the sincere but naïve to us know that affirmation of formal Biblical authority (presupposing the Bible’s inspiration and infallibility) guarantees right belief. To this way of thinking, right belief about the Bible equals right Biblical belief.  Few theological assumptions could be more mistaken.  Nonetheless, this was the very cry of the so-called radical reformers, and eventually the Unitarians and other antitrinitarians, who wanted to pass their heresy off as a valid on the grounds of the reformers’ clarion call of sola scripture.  It was far from the reformers’ minds, however, to overturn ancient Catholic orthodoxy enshrined in the ecumenical creeds.  They were convinced that medieval accretions to Catholic orthodoxy polluted a vibrant Biblical Faith.  To them, “Scripture alone” meant “No human authority — including the church — competes with Scripture.”  It did not mean, “Lets summarily overthrow historic Christianity by a 16th-century recovery of primal Christianity in terms of an historically unconditioned reading of the Bible.”  They were convinced — and they were right, that the Bible requires, by explication and implication — historic, Orthodox Christianity.

***

It really is a gross prostitution of the Reformers to claim them as justification for heresy without GREAT clarification, which clarification would indeed suck all the life out of the claim.  For instance, if I ever quote a futurist author in support of my preterist point (not something minor), I would be deceiving my audience if I did not inform them that this author would NOT support my use of them ultimately - that they have arrived at radically different conclusions and would think I am DEAD wrong.

The hyperpreterists do not do this.  They breezily refer to the Reformers without the acknowledgment that the Reformers would have gagged to have thought that they were being used to overturn such a foundational principle of the faith.  They made it clear they were not departing from orthodoxy, and specifically creedal orthodoxy.  And these are the very same men that come from the time (though I would clearly say that this is not an accusation I would lay at their collective feet, I am performing a logical strike at Samuel Frost’s histrionical accusation at me that I would burn him at the stake) when heretics were burned at the stake.  I wonder if Samuel has a great problem with claiming such men as his justification?  If not, is that not hypocritical?  Does that mean he would burn, say, Servetus at the stake???

As you may know, I am one of the owners of the TheologyWeb forum. I have been saying for quite some time now that the hyperpreterists are sounding more and more like Mormons every day. For example, check out this blog discussion.

We have a vocal Mormon apologist on TheologyWeb who just posted this question.

How does one define “Christianity”? Is it Catholicism, Baptist doctrine, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism, etc? Evangelicals have also strayed from traditional historic Christianity in numerous ways. But they are now considered Christians; even though they were also deemed “cults” by the orthodox Christians. The irony and humor comes into play when we realize that the former “cult” which include Protestant Christians, are the ones leading the march against all other “deviant” forms of Christianity. At what point can one “deviate” and no longer be called a Christian?

Who gets to decide when exactly that line has been crossed? And why?

Boy that sounds familiar. I have zero idea what the author’s position is on hyperpreterism (there are Mormon preterists , or at least preteristic advocates BTW) - so my use of his quote is not to imply his support. However, if I did not note that this was a Mormon apologist, it could be substituted into the typical hyperpreterist arsenal.

Do you like green eggs and ham?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like green eggs and ham.

Would you like them here or there?
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Yes, I am a bit silly.

I had promised Samuel that I would detail the second recent incident where I was misrepresented. On a heretical site discussing his non-refutation of my assumption-filed article, Samuel said:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Really?? First - did I EVER say that I “didn’t have time”? No…. here is what I said:

HyperPreterist Samuel Frost has written a “response” (at least he seems to think so) to my argument for the condemnation of the Neo-Hymenæan gangrene. All Samuel seemed to prove, however, are two things. One, he has a shockingly poor comprehension of exactly what my point is. Two, he is able to completely miss the point using more words than Don Preston. Allllright. Seeing how he is arguing something I already addressed five years ago, this is not my top priority.

Gentry speaks of his experiences in dealing with hyperpreterist rebuttals:

Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions – or die the death of a thousand emails.

Just because someone, even someone as well-known in the movement as Samuel, writes something they think is devastating, that in no means obligates me to drop whatever plans I have to deal with that - especially when in my perspective I already dealt with this with Don Preston.

So misrepresentation number one: I didn’t say I had no time, I said it was not a priority.

Now onto misrepresentation number two:

…a person who writes blogs and articles all day

Oh really Samuel? ALL day? You do realize that I have a full-time professional job, at times I work two jobs, I have a family, I have friends, and I have other interests. Where in the world do you justify that I write blogs all day? I don’t even write one blog a day. And articles???? How many articles have I written Samuel? In five years of writing on the Net I have written the following articles that I can remember:

Angels We Have Heard on High (on the location of Christ’s Reign)
On the “Soon” Return of Jesus
The Angry Womyn’s Revised Bible (co-author)
Is It A Duck?
Christ: The Alpha and Omega
Raising Cain and Abel

as well as my Matthew 24 commentary (which took years as I only work on it sporadically) and another article that has not yet been published, but is a version of “Is It a Duck”

I have various other pieces that were not officially articles and perhaps I have forgotten a few, but as one can see, I am hardly a prolific writer. I certainly don’t spend all day to such an extent that someone cannot believe that I am not all lathered up about answering Samuel’s piece.

Now on to misrepresentation number three:

Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

Again…. really? NEVER? Is that your final answer? Let’s see. When Don Preston missed the point (and this is included in the original article which Samuel says he read) I said:

The above article is a defense of my use of the term “Neo-Hymenaean” for modern self-styled “full preterists” and the condemnation of such teaching as a potentially damnable heresy within the framework of MY starting presuppositions. In other words, for the sake of evaluating my consistency/justification in doing such, I have asked the reader to take my beliefs as true simply for the sake of argument to determine if I am then behaving correctly within that paradigm. I make no claim whatsoever in that article to provide a proof for my starting presuppositions so any squawking that I failed to do so is simply whistling Dixie. I make explicit the limitations of my purpose/goal for this article in this opening statement:

And in response to Don’s comment:

Further, it is so glaringly obvious that Ms. Warren is seeking to distract attention away from the timing issue. Her entire thesis falls to the ground if indeed Paul taught by inspiration that the resurrection was to occur in the first century. Did anyone notice that Ms. Warren had not one substantive word to say about this issue?

I responded:

The only thing that is glaringly obvious is that Don has completely missed the point and proceeds then to show off how completely he has done so. Did anyone notice that it was never my point or goal to prove my presuppositions that Paul did not teach that the resurrection was to occur in the first century? Did anyone notice that I also did not have one substantive word to say about the history of Delaware?

And in my original blog in which Samuel and I first discussed this, Samuel said:

Now, IF your version of “orthodoxy” is true, then yes (duh!), we would be heretics (does this really need to be said?).

And (remember Samuel said I NEVER said what the point was) then I responded (after reiterating this point ad nauseam prior to this entry):

YES!!!!!!! That is the point Sam! Congratulations! You have called me all kinds of things by suggesting that I am wrong in calling your view heresy - YET FROM MY POINT OF VIEW I HAVE NO CHOICE. Neither does anyone else in the orthodox camp. So your continual claims to be one of the brethren is not honest to the claims of the orhtodox. WE CANNOT accept you that way. We are not being mean, nasty, heretic hunters when we say so, we are only being consistent with our beliefs. So when will you acknowledge that? When will you present your view forthrightly that way?? When Sam???

and

You kept arguing something I was not even arguing Sam. Too bad it took over seventy posts in this blog for you to figure that out.

There are many more statements to that effect in that discussion. Thus, I did say what my point was and even used the language - “That is the point Sam!”

Here is Samuel’s statement once again:

I find it hard to believe that a person who writes blogs and articles all day has no time to deal with this rather short article (while at the same time issuing that I “missed the point.”) Notice she NEVER makes this point known.

I think the only thing that is correct in his statement is that I am “a person.”

Samuel, I am a stickler for accuracy - and if you says grossly inaccurate things I will catch them. And if I am called on doing that (as in our prior discussion) I will correct myself if I did.

There is enough drama and controversy about things I actually do say and do - you don’t need to fabricate or exaggerate ones.