Hyper-Preterism for Dummies by Dorothy Anderson

Editors Note: Dorothy Anderson returned to the heresy of Full/Hyper Preterism in 2010.

 

I thought it might be time to take a moment here and tell folks just what hyper-preterists believe. I know this is new to many of you so I’m keeping it short.

 

Well, there are lots of garden varieties, but this is a pretty uniform statement but don’t be surprised to see some argue they don’t believe ALL these things. Beyond their eschatology, there hasn’t been a real cohesive system put in place – by that I mean no clear role for the Church, marriage, etc. I think you get the picture.

 

Anyway, there are basically two ages spoken of in scripture. The Mosaic economy, called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant economy of the Church. In the New Testament, “this age” is considered the Old Covenant economy while the “age to come” is the New Covenant economy and that came into being in AD70.

 

This is what they attribute to AD70.

 

  1. They hold that the judgments of Revelation are those of a covenant breaking Mosaic economy (Lev 26) and it was at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, that the New Covenant economy was established (Isa 9:7).

 

2) They claim the 1000 years of Rev 20:7 was actually 40 or less.

 

3) Satan has been relegated to the lake of fire forever – crushed – defeated

 

4) They claim the resurrection took place.

 

5) The White Throne judgment occurred of the living & the dead.

 

6) The Church was married to Christ.

 

7) They claim atonement was completed.

 

  1. They claim the destruction of Jerusalem was the return of Christ, the “day of the Lord” and there is no other. They lean heavily on Josephus as historical validation to scripture here.

 

Basically, ALL was fulfilled; there is nothing else although some hedge here because their system doesn’t give them a real clear answer to how things work going forward. That issue stays in dispute.

 

They rely heavily on the Greek word “mello” as a time text to mean “about to” to prove the text demands a first century fulfillment, but that is now coming under fire. A few other Greek words they appeal to are also questionable.

 

Now as nuts as all this can sound to someone who hasn’t examined their belief structure, I must say that if you buy into their “presupposition” on the Greek word “mello” and read the texts under that umbrella, then their system starts to sound sensible and it draws you right in. Some talk about it feeling like the Church has lied to them, so the Church almost becomes the enemy…and anyone who questions their position is trying to “steal their freedom”. It is common to hear talk about leaving their Church families – due to the conflict of their position or because they see too much error being taught. (This adds to the problems for those who leave the view because they have no Church support)

 

For those interested, here is a link to the Preterist Archive that reveals more of the hyper-preterist teachings.

 

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/regressive.html

Note: Even if you aren’t interested in knowing more about what hyper-preterists believe, please take a few minutes and scroll down to “If Full Preterism isn’t true” and read some of the quotes. I think you’ll find them enlightening and they will reveal what they profess far better than I ever could.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Hyper-Preterism for Dummies by Dorothy Anderson

  1. Hi Dorothy,

    Wow, you keep these articles coming! As far as I can tell, the issues you mentioned constitute the icing on the Hyper-Preterist poisoned cake. However, you may also have heard that several Hyper-Prets don’t believe that Jesus Christ’s physical death on the cross was substitutionary in nature. In a July 18th, 2008 comment on my blog, disgruntled scientist J.L. Vaughn wrote:

    “Christ’s physical death is properly called a sign.

    If Christ’s physical death was substitutionary, then the fact that you will one day die demonstrates,

    You are still in your sin.”

    So, the Hyper-Preterist doctrines impact soteriology, and not just eschatology. There’s another guy named “Ted” (a.k.a. Ed), a member of Jason Bradfield’s SVP forum, who has stated that Christ wasn’t resurrected in his own body. Then there are guys like Ed Burley, who liken Hyper-Preterism to a circus sideshow where “anything goes.”

    BURLEY writes:

    “We are the absolutely worst cult in the history of the world!!!!

    “I mean, take a look at Truth Voice 2008. We screwed up big time. We had the keynote speaker being an advocate of eternal conscious torment, the host as an annihilationist, and a few rabble-rousers who are called “universalists” in the crowd.

    “In addition, we had young earth creationists (one actually speaking), old earth creationists, and covenant creationists (also among the speakers). To boot, it seems like I roomed with a theistic evolutionist. Sheesh, the people that are allowed in this cult!

    “We had Calvinists, Arminians and quasi-universalists all signing a declaration of support for preterism.

    “We had infant baptizers, dunkers, none-baptizers all sitting in the audience.

    “We had a guy speaking who thinks that Hades and hospitality have been grossly misunderstood by the general population of Christians over the centuries (and I just heard that he’s insane), and some hick from Oklahoma who only wanted to talk about LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. Talk about cultish!

    “There was even a hippie looking guy from the Salvation Army who has the strange idea that God wants us to take care of the poor. And let’s not forget that Emergent bunch…

    “There was ONE GUY who actually claimed that the author of the books of John was actually LAZARUS. Can you believe that?”

    ******

    Yes, we believe it, Ed. Anytime someone drops all historical anchorage and relies on his own subjective understanding of Scripture, the result will be the above scenario.

    Brian

  2. Dorothy,

    Since Phil likes us to stay exegetical, I will quote the only exegetical thing you say, “I must say that if you buy into their “presupposition” on the Greek word “mello” and read the texts under that umbrella, then their system starts to sound sensible and it draws you right in.” Ahem. Maybe you want to quote Kenneth Gentry, K. Mathison, C. Jonathin Sereaiah, Jay E. Adams, and host of other “orthodox” preterists on the word “mello.”

    Secondly, because I can’t tell from your writing, is this what you believe: “Anyway, there are basically two ages spoken of in scripture. The Mosaic economy, called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant economy of the Church. In the New Testament, “this age” is considered the Old Covenant economy while the “age to come” is the New Covenant economy and that came into being in AD70.” ? I hope it is not what you believe, because, if it is, congrats, you are a “heretic” by your own admission. ALL the Creeds and Confessions “look FORWARD to the Age to Come.” A.D. 70 did not “come into being” in A.D. 70. according to orthodoxy.

    Do your homework!

    Sam

  3. Dorothy says these beliefs are “pretty uniform”. I couldn’t get past the first one. I personally am not aware of a single preterist who says “that the New Covenant economy was established” at the destruction of Jerusalem.

  4. Hi Jason,

    Maybe “age” would be a better word to use than economy. Do you have a problem with that one?

    Clue, if you look at how you deal with what occurs in “this age” or the “age to come” you leave no room for the ages of Eph 2:6.

  5. I have emailed this to Schwertly and never heard back from him – don’t know why, so i won’t speculate:

    In an article against premillennialism, you stated that “When the verb mello is joined to the present infinitive which is what is found in Revelation 3:10 (tes mellouses erchesthai), it always expresses imminence.”

    How would this work with 2 Timothy 4:1-2 and Acts 17:30-31? I’m no greek scholar, but it is my understanding that both of those passages have mello joined to the present infinitive…”about to judge”.

    Any insights?

    ———-

    Schwertly here is echoing Gentry. And i know that Gentry does not interpret Acts 17 as “imminent”.

    I first heard this “mello” stuff from postmillennialists, not full preterists.

  6. Brian,

    You said:

    “Anytime someone drops all historical anchorage and relies on his own subjective understanding of Scripture, the result will be the above scenario.”

    This is almost verbatim what the Roman Catholic Church charges the protestant Church with. They look at the Charismatics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists etc. and all of the many doctrines that divide the Church body, and make they very same statement. They see all of the differences within the protestant Church concerning baptism, communion, gifts of the spirit, various eschatology etc. and make the claim that it’s because “They rely on their own subjective understanding of Scripture and have left historic anchorage.”

    I’m just curious as to why you don’t go back to the Roman Church? They have the traditions. They have the unified position on communion, baptism and all of the Church histories. I think it only logical to follow your own advice and convert back to Roman Catholicism and giving up on the protestant Church in all of it’s confusion.

    Understanding the scriptures from a preterist perspective is much like that of the reformation. We understand that the historic Church has made some mistakes in this area of theology. We are trying to use this understanding to re-examine other areas of theology that it affects. It is not some vast conspiracy like you are charging us with advocating. We merely suggest that out of sincerity, many of the “Church fathers” made mistakes along the way concerning this area that we call eschatology. For over 1500 years the Church was in error over the doctrines of grace. Why is it so hard to believe that the Church is capable of making mistakes? If you don’t think that the Church can make mistakes in it’s history, I would ask you to look at it’s state today. The Church has become practically ineffective and is of no relevance for most people in our culture. This is why the Church is dwindling in numbers and is failing our culture.

    I look around at various newspapers and news websites that have all but eliminated “religion” as a section for common interest. Why is that? It’s because the Church has lost it’s relevancy and has been preaching doom and gloom being just around the corner. It has preached that Jesus would return “soon” to the point of “soon” losing it’s relevancy. This “soon coming of Christ” preached for over generations has promoted apathy and an attitude of escapism.

    The perterist message is that Jesus did exactly what He said He would do. He came “soon” within the lifetime of His disciples just as He said He would. One can trust Him. We as Christians have made the mistake of missing His message and have taken His time statements and have changed their meaning to be far or distant. Over the past many years, we have been guilty of twisting His words in order to make his Word fit our futuristic understanding. We have ripped the scriptures from their first century context and misapplied them to our present day. We have become so self-centered in thinking that the scriptures couldn’t have been speaking to it’s first century audience and their situations. No! It’s somehow got to be about us or our future. How sad we have become.

    When we find error, we must bow to the scriptures and conform to them. We don’t continue in error. Error is never a safe place to be. To take comfort in history and tradition is to make the very same mistake of the first century. Many missed Christ because they were being told to trust the religious leadership and 1500 years of Jewish history. Aren’t you guilty of doing the same thing? I say this respectfully, and with no ill toward you in my heart.

    C. Jonathin Sereaiah made the statement that the creeds and confessions are “spirit led truths”. Well, I certaintly don’t want to go against a “spirit led truth”. Spirit led truth is infallible truth. Is he saying that the creeds and confessions then are infallible? Even the Westminsiter divines don’t make that claim. They say, “that the confessions and creed can and do err.”

    We are to use the scriptures as our measuring rod. Not the creeds and confessions of men. They are helpful, and I respect them greatly for the work they earnestly have accomplished, but even they tell us to test the doctrines by the scriptures rather than their own fallible documents.

    Truth has nothing to fear from the light of day.

    Sincerely,

    –Mark

Comments are closed.