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.

I am taking many months now to go back through old posts in order to usefully and properly place them into categories, thus, I have no time to author new posts… however in going back through old posts, I find ones that are just as fresh and relevant today, and new readers might not have seen. This was originallly published May 7, 2006.

This is something that has been on my plate for a while (i.e. an article on the hijacking of the historically good term of “preterism” by a vocal heretical minority). I was reviewing my earlier arguments on this point during the writing of the Wikipedia entry on preterism and thought them valuable to reproduce here:

And the person who authored that definition was Farrar who considered himself a preterist, and yet did not believe that ALL prophecy was fulfilled. How is that Farrar could consider himself a preterist if the definition is as the full preterists are insisting? He couldn’t. Farrar also listed a group of men that he labeled as “preterists” and yet none of them believed that ALL prophecy was fullfiled. How can that be if the full preterist insistence is correct? It can’t be. This is not honestly dealing with the definition.

Furthermore, Farrar’s definition was written BEFORE there was any significant existence of “full preterists” and thus he was not facing that challenge when authoring that definition. By his application of that definition to himself, and others who would today be considered partial preterists, it is a historical fact that my definition is correct, otherwise it would have to be assumed that there were no preterists at all (and why would Farrar make a definition for a nonexistent group) prior to this recent full preterist movement, and that is untrue. Preterism goes back to the earliest church, and the Latin terminology for it predates the modern full preterism movement, so this is untrue. This term also predates Farrar and is applied in theological discourse to mean “partial preterist” - I can cite theological scholarly works that do just this - which are more authorative than a general dictionary definition (which still supports my position in historical context). These are very respected “four views” books in Christian theology that represent the “preterist” view and they are all partial preterists - how is it that they do that if the full preterist insistence is correct? Why is not the full preterist view EVER in any of these accepted works? Because it is NOT accepted as a valid eschatological view within mainstream Christianity.

I also cite the Nelson Publishing, a MAJOR Christian publisher, and publisher of the New King James Bible, which states on page 2195 in the Study Bible - “preterists view the book [Revelation] as referring almost exclusively to first century events.” Which is more of an authority for a theological definition? Dictionary.com or numerous theologically specific works including one of the top Christian publishers? Unfortunately the Nelson Study Bible is not online so I cannot give a link - I would be more than happy to scan that page and upload it at my site for anyone to view or to mail a copy of the page. And Farrar as shown above is being misused for his definition is being yanked out of its historical context. This is historical revisionism folks.

This is reiterated by other Study Bibles and by the facts of history.

***

Zondervan, another MAJOR Christian publisher in the NIV study Bible states:

Preterists understand the book [Revelation] exclusviely in terms of its first century setting, claiming that most of its events have already taken place.

So now two major publishers have given us definitions, and the facts of history bear this out. By full preterist insistence there were no preterists until their movement came into being, yet this word “preterist” predates them with Farrar himself being a preterist that did not believe that all was over. What Farrar was referring to that all these things had their application in the first century, ie the millenium began then etc. In light of his application of this definition to himself, unless we think he was so benighted that he confused himself so royally, we have to interpret his definition consistently with his application, and he applied to what today would be called partial preterists. Back then there was no need for “partial” to be added, that is the only kind of preterist that there was in any numbers.

***

I gave my definition in light of the Dictionary.com definition which was authored by Farrar by looking at how Farrar defined it. He could not have been inventing a definition for a movement that didn’t even exist in any substantial presence at the time he authored the definition. That is beyond credulity. Full preterism as a distinct movement began about thirty years ago. There were scattered works prior to that, but no significant movement or numbers. And this word predates even those scattered works, and predates Farrar. It is a Latin term that goes back to prior to the Reformation. Historical revisionism will not cut it.

It is a misrepresentation of what I have said here to say I dismissed the dictionary.com definition because I disagreed with it. In fact, in historical context it favour my position for Farrar gave us a true to life living defintion - himself. And he did not believe all prophecy was fulfilled. The full preterist has no rejoinder to this. Further, I note they are citing “Princeton” - It is nearly certain that Princeton’s source is Farrar! Just because the same thing is repeated ten times doesn’t make it ten sources. It is one source repeated ten times. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that they are advocating Princeton in that definition as the paragon of theological precision seeing how they spelled Revelation as Revelations.

I have given a well-reasoned unemotional argument for my position. It is supported by the brute facts of history, adn the contradictions created by the full preterist insistence are inreconcilable.

The NIV defintion is credited to Robert Mounce and David O’Brown. Nelson doesn’t divide up the section s but their list of contributors is extensive and is the who’s who of Christian scholarship. The NT chief Editor was H. Wayne House.

***

I futher cite a very well respected commentary on Revelation:

Revelation Four Views: edited by Steve Gregg:

In contrast, those who hold to the classical preterism of centuries past take a high view of the inspection of Scripture and date the Book of Revelation just prior to 70AD. They are capable of pointing out may details in Revelation that they beleive were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem and some see in the later chapters the prediction of the fall of Rome and byond to the Second Coming of Christ. What I am representing as preterism in this volume is this theological conservative early-date preterism that has had worthy advocates for several centuries.

Note. Preterism has existed for centuries. Full preterism has not. By full preterist reasonikng we had a word that defined something that didn’t even exist yet.

***

And you are claiming that Nelson and Zondervan are owned by Partial Preterists? It is frustrating because if you go back to two days ago I adddressed this point. All you keep doing is reasserting over and over. This Princeton quote proves my point by the way (and ironically many Full Preterists don’t believe Revelation is fully fulfilled, they believe it is ongoing - again shooting your point in the foot).

Why does the Princeton quote prove my point? Apocalypse can be taken two ways - it can refer to the whole book of Revelation or the Apocolypse that is described in Revelation, this is called a part for the whole, a linguistic convention. It is apparent by Farrar’s practice that he was referring to the apocolyyptic events of Revelation as fulfilled - something that partial preterists believe.

Notice what this definition does not say, and I really wish you would be forthright with this - it does not say ALL Bible prophecy has been fulfilled. It does not say the resurrection and Second Coming have been fulfilled [though Farrar did seem to have two referents for the "Second Coming" one in the past and one yet future - so to be specific it does not deny a future Second Coming]. On numerous fronts it fails to support you.

Additoinally, even if for sake of argument it did support you, I have provided other very credible sources that don’t define it that way. Why should we take a secular source over a Christian source? Either way we looked at it, I used credible sources and logic to show that the issue is not settled.

Also how can you claim that Princeton is qualified to give a theological definition when they don’t even know that Revelation doesn’t have an “S” at the end of it?

I gave reputable sources that defined is narrowly for me. The only clear thing here is that there is confliccting testimony and when that happens in a court of law, what the jury does is take the weight of what the conflicting stories have in common.

If preterism is, as it is, a theological construct that deals with the fulfillment of prophecy, you analogy is frankly inane, for then it is a philosphy that can be held in degrees, not an item itself which can be chopped down. And once again, the word existed before full preterism was a historical movement. It cannot mean solely something that did not even exist yet. That is the height of illogical reasoning.

And I would appreciate that you keep the personal attacks to your own site and not the Wiki. I have and will keep my editorial polemics to my own site. I am approaching this project here with a distant dispassionate outlook, and am trying to have a factual and fair NPOV article. I believe my manner has demonstrated that and am open to advise as I have been from the admins. I have never hid my personal beliefs, but that does not render me incapable of dispassaionate research which I have presented and has not been rebuttal in an unemotional fashion.

When I use the word “admission” I do not use to mean that the person doing the “admitting” has given up the ghost. I do use it to mean that something is candidly admitted, which others in a group deny or obscure, that may not be entirely flattering to the group but is honest. David has done this before for which I have commended him. He has done it again on his Yahoo mailing list.

In the olden days (1800’s), a “preterist” was a person who saw the book of Revelation (and maybe some other passages and prophetic books) as mostly or wholly fulfilled. I think that we “heretical preterists” have been doing a fine job of changing the usage of the word. I know it irks the old-school “preterists” today (Gentry, Mathison, et al) that they’re increasingly being perceived as merely an inconsistent version of us.

I don’t concede his statement on such a thing being relegated to the 1800s, but that is not the point I am fixating on, it is David’s admission that hyperpreterists have changed the usage of the word. IOW, they have hijacked a word that meant something else. That has been my whole point. I refuse that hijacking, and so should you.

As far as being irked, semantical hijacking is irksome, agreed. At least David is upfront that such is exactly what has been going on. Something I have been saying for a few years now.

A while back when Hank first “came out” of the eschatological closet, there was a flurry of hyperpreterist (NeoHymenaean) spin that perhaps Hank was in actuality embracing that view. I made extensive commentary at that time at the irresponsibility of these actions and the blindness to obvious reality. However, part of the issue was an article in The Dallas Morning News in which Hank was credited as saying that the rapture was past. Now really, if anyone thinks about this, Hank is not going to casually reveal in such a manner that he has now rejected the hallmark of his ministry - orthodoxy. An odd smell from Denmark is readily apparent to anyone at all familiar with Hank. But a lot of people are not that familiar with Hank, and this article was picked up by numerous other papers.

At that time I had a conversation with the religion editor for the original paper (who by the way was very helpful) and was the catalyst for The Dallas Morning News to contact Hank’s ministry for a clarification. The result is what follows which is published as well here by permission.

Clarifying his views: Re: “New take on Rapture puts authors in apocalyptic feud”

appearing 12/10/04 in The Dallas Morning News (reprinted by permission)

Letters to the Religion editor

05:51 PM CST on Friday, December 10, 2004

Nov. 6

Just a note to clarify some misconceptions concerning my view of biblical eschatology communicated in the article.

First, Tim LaHaye’s assertion that I subscribe to the “nonsense that Christ came back in 68 A.D.” is surely one of his more creative works of fiction. Such a notion is not even hinted at in my book, The Last Disciple, nor have I made such a statement in any forum. Dr. LaHaye simply manufactured this assertion out of whole cloth.

Furthermore, I have never suggested that the Rapture has already taken place. Thus, the article’s opening sentence, “What if the Rapture has already happened?” is misleading. In fact, unlike the “Left Behind” series which is based on the pre-Tribulational Rapture theory posited and popularized in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, “The Last Disciple” series is centered on the great and glorious truth of Resurrection.

Finally, nowhere in “The Last Disciple” is there any suggestion that in order “to survive, early Christians must decipher a mysterious code.” While deciphering the symbols of Revelation is often difficult for 21st-century Christians addicted to “newspaper theology,” John’s coded letter would have been substantially clear to first-century believers.

Thank you for the opportunity to make the above clarifications and to affirm that I hold to what is taught in Scripture and codified in the creeds: Jesus is coming again; the dead will be resurrected; and the problem of sin will be fully and finally resolved.

Hank Hanegraaff, president, Christian Research Institute, Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.