Some Questions for Former and Current Believers in Full Preterism

The ongoing discussions regarding Full Preterism has been interesting to say the least. Clearly Full Preterism isn’t your garden variety eschatological belief system. I’ve been dying to ask those that either currently adhere to this belief system or have walked away from Full Preterism a few questions if I may……

 

1). What specifically convinced you to believe that 2000 years of biblical interpretation was wrong regarding the second coming of Christ?

 

2). What specifically convinced you (ex believers in Full Preterism) that Jesus didn’t return in 70AD?

 

3). What would it take to convince those who currently believe that all was not fulfilled in 70AD to abandon this belief system?

 

Thanks in Advance,

Phil

 

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Some Questions for Former and Current Believers in Full Preterism

  1. Hey Phil,
    I didn’t know you were a teacher.Now i understand your patience.:)

    Phil: I learned patience from being a tennis teacher. Ever tried to teach something without being able to speak the students language?

    1). What specifically convinced you to believe that 2000 years of biblical interpretation was wrong regarding the second coming of Christ?
    The scriptures,same as why i left the RCC and the hyper-disensationalist Baptist Church.Time text were what peaked my curiosity.I always had a problem with Matt 24.

    I’ll even leave full preterism if you and the others could show with scripture and scripture alone why i should.

    Phil: I wouldn’t have it any other way Bill….nor would Jesus

    2). What specifically convinced you (ex believers in Full Preterism) that Jesus didn’t return in 70AD?
    N.A.

    3). What would it take to convince those who currently believe that all was not fulfilled in 70AD to abandon this belief system?

    Jesus was to return..Or if someone can show with the scriptures where I’m misunderstanding them.

    Great questions Phil
    Blessings
    Bill

    Phil: Thanks Bill!

  2. Excellent questions Phil. As someone who was a hyperpreterist for 15 years, promoted it & devoted much time to it, these are good & fair questions. I mean, how in the world could anyone believe this stuff? There has to be something seriously wrong with a person right??…that person having been me AND everyone who falls for hyperpreterism.

    Phil: I don’t think people who believe in Full Preterism have something seriously wrong with them. In fact I KNOW more FP’s then all of you combined. I’ve found in most cases those within the movement as well as those formerly in the movement to be well meaning sincere people….including you Rod

    Well, obviously not everyone wakes up one day & says, “Hey, I want to be a heretic”. It involved many things to get to this point.

    Generally, hyperpreterism has grown out of the “church of Christ” denomination (cofc) & this is important to understand because the cofc comes from a movement called “The Restoration Movement” (see link) The Restoration Movement claimed that the true Church & true Gospel had died out & they had to “restore” it — therefore it is no coincidence that the first & still most prominent leaders of hyperpreterism all come from the cofc (Max King, Tim King, Don Preston, William Bell, Jack Scott, Larry Seigle, Terry Hall, Virgil Vaduva, Kurt Simmons & even Ed Stevens originally). So that’s how some got into it & how it has mainly festered.

    QUESTION #1 ANSWERED
    But how did I PERSONALLY become convinced that 2000 years worth of Christianity was wrong? I am NOT a cofc guy, nor are many of the newer crop of hyperpreterists. Well, the second crop came through historically disconnected reading of Scripture. We have been told or independently believed that the Reformed slogan of “Sola Scriptura” means something equal to private interpretation — to heck with 2000 years worth of Christianity we concluded, we read the Bible & come to radically different conclusions so says not only a hyperpreterist but all heretics that deviate from historic Christianity. And then we thump our chests & claim that we & we alone are true Christians hold faithfully to Scripture. We fancy ourselves little Martin Luthers taking on the big bad Church…even though that concept of Luther is distorted. The arrogance is amazing. And you know what? When that kind of thinking takes hold of a person, we certainly should not feed the delusion by making them feel like it is valid. I thank the many people who continued to oppose me & what I was teaching while I was a hyperpreterist. Any coddling of me only prolonged the heresy’s hold on me. Therefore it is extremely important that we understand 2 Pet 3:13-17 wherein it talks about people twisting Scripture to their own destruction. I believe there are people within the hyperpreterist movement, like me, like Dorothy, like Brian Simmons, like Todd Dennis who begin to have an idea that they have crossed the line out of Christianity & then those sincere people start looking for a way to throw off the heresy. BUT there are also people in hyperpreterism like the guys in Romans 16:17-18 who for whatever reason, personal ego or something are hell-bent on dividing Christians from the doctrines of historic Christianity –sure, they will use smooth & flattering speech, but they still deliver poison. We need to be on the watch/note/mark for such people & pray much since some do not come out but by much prayer & fasting.

    QUESTION #2 ANSWERED
    There are only so many possibilities with these claims:
    1) Jesus returned in AD70 as it appears in some isolated texts but against the witness of 2000 years of Christianity.
    2) Jesus didn’t return in AD70 as it appears in most texts & by witness of 2000 years of Christianity.

    If we believe option #1 we have to say the heck with historic Christianity — even with all the hyperpreterist attempts to find “seeds” of hyperpreterism in history, they just aren’t there. So then, we have an event taking place that not only Jesus didn’t/couldn’t clearly teach & make sure Christians understood, but also the Holy Spirit guided, inspired apostles would/could not have made clear enough to the Christians. We can’t just say, “Well, it’s not Jesus’ & the apostles fault that the Christians didn’t get it”. I mean, I was a training supervisor for 8 years with a team of 4 trainers that were responsible for training over 250 employees that came through 3 call-centers & you know what I would have told my trainers if their typical classes of 16 students would have ALL failed to learn what they were teaching? I would have blamed it on the trainers/teachers, not the students. Either way, hyperpreterism undermines Christianity. It causes you to lose faith in the Sovereignty of God & His ability to guide His Church. And don’t think to compare it to the Jews who missed their Messiah the first time, since those people were under an old covenant — we Christians are supposed to be under a BETTER COVENANT. The covenant Jesus came to establish & reveal. If it is as flawed as the former, then again, Christianity is undermined by hyperpreterist “logic”.

    Phil: I’ve always wondered why if Jesus came back in 70AD why did He leave John here to boil in oil? Or to be imprisoned in Patmos? Why didn’t John know Jesus returned because he would have been alive during that time correct?

    Option #2 is humbling because it takes our individualism, our desire to be personally right & it causes us to say, “Yea, I ‘think’ I know what this text means…but why does all of Christianity stand against me?” It causes us to NOT ignore 2000 years worth of Christian witness. It causes us to hold to Sola Scriptura within the confines of the notion that Jesus & the apostles ACTUALLY did successfully teach & guide the Church. It respects the authority & Sovereignty of God & humbles our puny minds.

    So, I was personally convinced that Jesus didn’t return in AD70 because Jesus obviously didn’t clearly teach that to Christians, nor did the apostles clearly teach that to Christians…otherwise they would have believed it. To me, this option is most God-honoring because it humbles the interpreter to say, we believe what Jesus & the apostles taught because this is how ALL of Christianity has understood Jesus & the apostles. Anything less is something DIFFERENT than Christianity. I realized I could no longer rightfully call myself a Christian while I stood outside of everything that has been Christianity.

    QUESTION #3 ANSWERED
    Well, no man is convinced unless he wants to be convinced. We have already seen how many of the hyperpreterists have behaved with the multiple postings here. They are arrogant & ready to treat others like they are duped & stupid. They disrespectfully refer to us as “what’s his name”. No hyperpreterist will be “convinced” until he is humbled. Arrogance is at the root of hyperpreterism. After all, it is a belief that claims that 2000 years of Christian interpretation has been grossly wrong. If 2000 years worth of Christian witness doesn’t even phase some of these guys, they certainly aren’t going to listen to you or I, mere “what’s his names” like us. So then, what should we do? Well since as I said I have to believe that there ARE more Rodericks & more Dorothys, more Brian Simmons’ & more Todd Dennis’ (all former-hyperpreterists) within the hyperpreterist movement, we keep on repeating the same beacon call that got us out of it….we keep calling them back to historic Christianity, to the communion of the saints, to the One Body. We don’t coddle them in their delusion. We don’t pretend they are espousing different but valid views. We don’t treat it like a non-essential.

    As for the Romans 16:17-18 types that are in hyperpreterism??? Well, though the beacon shines for them too, we must still vigorously oppose them since they are acting like the chains & snares that hold others in this heresy.

    Again, Phil thank you soooooooo much for posting this & asking these questions. And to you within the hyperpreterist movement…you who is reading this & being pricked in your conscience, now is the time. Email Phil, a third party (theology.today@gmail.com) — I’m sure he’d be glad to talk with you & help you out of this heretical death grip. I’m praying for you as are many others. It’s time to come home.

    In Christ & His Church,
    Roderick

    Phil: Thanks Roderick. Yes anyone can email me at anytime. Please put in the tagline “Full Preterism” so I don’t accidently delete it. You can also phone me at +30 693 644 4218. If you’re in the states just buy a prepaid phone card that will enable us to talk for about 2 hours for only 5 Bucks.

  3. Phil,
    I’m sorry but the “HISTORY” argument doesn’t do a thing for me.If that was my standard,I’d still be RCC.

    Of course we respect those that went before us,we stand on their shoulders.And by that,yes we can see farther.

    The information and tools we have today are far superior then at any time in history.Dead Sea Scrolls,Nag Hammadi library just to name a few.

    If someone is going to use history as the standard,then they have to take the good with the bad.

    Phil: When have I presented anything other then Scripture? I may ask questions but you know by know I present the Gospel. We may disagree with the interpretation and that’s fine. I’m not the Holy Spirit nor do I play Him on TV:-)

    Burning witches,inquisitions,false prophets,popes,councils,creeds that have disagreed with each other. for 2,000 yrs,Jim Jones’s,David Koresh’s.How many times has the rapture been close?

    I’m sorry but that’s not going to convince anyone.Can you imagine witnessing to people with a history book??

    The Bible is the only history book we need thank you very much.

    Phil you said “I’ve always wondered why if Jesus came back in 70AD why did He leave John here to boil in oil? Or to be imprisoned in Patmos? Why didn’t John know Jesus returned because he would have been alive during that time correct”?

    Is any of this worse then Christ Crucifixion? What makes you think John didn’t know he returned? He wrote the Book of Revelation.Doesn’t it tell of Jesus coming soon?
    You can’t imagine John hearing the news and just smiling? He was pretty old by then.

    Anyhow,just some thoughts Phil.
    As always Respectfully

    Bill

    Phil: Yes. The Book of Revelation says Jesus is coming soon. When was Revelation written Bill? Some claim AD65-67 and some claim AD 88-90. Either way John was most certainly alive a good 20 years or so AFTER AD70 and yet never said anything about Jesus returning (if He did that is). You’re are right it doesn’t matter. That’s just me thinking out loud.

  4. Hi Phil,

    Those are some great questions. As an ex-full preterist (a fact I don’t like to admit), here’s my take on the affair:

    Question #1: Intellectual pride. Wanting to be wiser than everybody else (when actually I was just being stupid).

    Question #2: A careful reading of the Old Testament prophets. The uniform witness of Messianic prophecy convinced me that Preterism was not in tune with the Bible.

    Question #3: Only the power of God will convince somebody to leave this system. Therefore, we must continue to pray for them. 2 Tim. 2: 25-26.

    Brian

  5. Hi all,

    If futurism was to be true (which it isn’t), then they inevitably must end up with this being the current message of the Church today.

    “And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand. He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”
    Jesus Testifies to the Churches “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

    Let the unjust remain unjust. Let the filthy remain filthy. Let the righteous remain righteous. Let the holy remain holy. Time has run out, because Jesus said, behold, I am coming quickly.

    Sad indeed that the futurist has robbed these first century words of their imminent first century meaning. Again they are so arrogant as to make these words apply to us today. It truly is the “me” generation. It all has to be about me. Maybe they should have us march around the walls of Jericho too, for it’s the Word of the Lord and it wasn’t meant for just Joshua but every believer. How absurd this reasoning truly is.

    The reason I left futurism is because of reasoning like this. It has turned words like “soon”, quickly”, “shortly”, “at hand”, “the final hour”, “about to be”, “this generation”, “at the door now”, “will not tarry”etc. into meaningless words that mean far, distant, not now, long time, will tarry, etc.

    Reader, ask your self these simple questions.

    Please read 2 Thessalonians 1:1-7 and answer these 6 questions.

    1. Who wrote this letter?
    2. To whom was it written?
    3. What were these people undergoing?
    4. What did Paul promise them?
    5. Did these people get what Paul promised them?
    6. When did they receive this promise?

    If the first century Thessalonian Christians did not receive what Paul promised them, then Paul gave them a false hope and is therefore not inspired. This would imply that the Bible is worthless. On the other hand, if those first century believers did receive what Paul promised them, then verse 7 has already happened. There is no other possibility because the Thessalonians of that era are no longer living.

    When James tells those to whom he is writing to “wait just a little while longer” because the coming of the Lord is “near”, was he giving them a false hope? No! He was under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit and did not lie or mislead those who were being persecuted. They would soon see His appearance and did!

    I’m sorry, but I am staying with the inspired Word of God over these futuristic traditions of men. Those words had real meaning for those who lived in “these last days” upon whom the end of the ages had appeared. The prophesies concerning the promises made to Israel had come and were completed with the removal of the Old Covenant and replaced with the eternal and everlasting Covenant of Christ. Praise be to the son who FINISHED the work of redemption and fulfilled ALL THINGS WRITTEN just as He said He would.

    Now that’s a God I can trust!

    Sadly, futurism has left the Church with a distorted view of the scriptures and robbed the gospel of it’s true meaning.

    Sincerely,

    –Mark

  6. Phil,

    Excellent and fair questions. Bill has answered them. I didn’t come from the Church of Christ. I came from the Reformed. After reading James B. Jordan, Gary DeMar, Kenneth L. Gentry (he taught my Eschatology course), Ray Sutton, Gary North, R. J. Rushdooney, etc., etc. and saw that 95% of NT prophecy was fulfilled (including II Peter 3, see Peter Leithart, the Great Puritan Preacher John Owen, and the Westminster Divine, John Lightfoot (who presided over the Westminster Confession)), it was an easy step to become Full Preterist. If Matthew 24 is fulfilled, then so is I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4. Any Premillennialist can tell you that.

    The question for me was the issue of history, since that my masters degree work (the same seminary as Keith Mathison and Kenneth Gentry). However, the Westminster Confession solved that problem: “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both” (31.4). If “all” councils, then that means the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. I simply used logic: “he shall come again” is not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but is a help and it “may err.” Once this possibility is allowed, then the buch has to stop somewhere.

    Bill has already said it, and you agreed: “I’ll even leave full preterism if you and the others could show with scripture and scripture alone why i should.

    Phil: I wouldn’t have it any other way Bill….nor would Jesus.” And, Phil, neither would I.

    Both of you agree with the Westminster Confession on this point: “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (1.10). Again, applying logic: Preterism presents a “religious controversy.” How is that to be settled? By an examination of Scripture.

    Finally, on the question of history, the Reformed have also elaborated on the Doctrine of Progressive Development. They did this because the doctrine of Justification by Faith was not made as clear and theologically precise as it came to be known by the time of th 17th century (I can quote a huge lot of Reformed historians on this point). Hence, the “once and for all truth” delivered to the Church was the Scriptures and the mind of God has always been in those Word of Scripture. However, we understand that OUR theological studies have not always grasped those doctrines with precision. We grow in our understanding throughout the consensus and history of the Church.

    Bill used the example of “standing on the shoulders of giants.” Good example. The Reformed historian William Goode coined that (Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 1842). We certainly do not reject church history. Full Preterism would not be where it is at today WITHOUT church history! I came to it THROUGH church history because I saw, from the second century onward, a clear, clear line of progression. Other scholars who are not Full Preterists, see this,too: “The NT seems to say slightly less than it used to about the final days of the world as a whole. There has been a similar trend in OT studies as well… (Eschatology in Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of A New Millennium; Kent Brower, Mark Elliot, eds. IVP, 1997, 2). This is a very true statement. It can be charted.

    The Creeds are subject to revision (as the frequently have been, if one cares to study in meticulous detail as to how they came to be what they are today). The Westminster Divines, therefore, did not make them a rule of faith and practice. They are “helps.” We do no deny the Second Coming. We do not deny the resurrection of the dead. We deny particular interpretations of those doctrines and we are entirely within our right as Christians to do so.

    Once those two things mentioned above were in place, Sola Scriptura and Progressive Development (both Reformed doctrines), then an investigation and re-evaluation of these particular doctrines was in order. Based upon the Scripture we came to conclusions we did. If Full Preterism is to be proven false, it must be done so by the Supreme Judge in ALL matters of faith and practice: God’s Holy, Inspired and Inerrant Word.

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  7. Who is talking about treating the Creeds as if they are equal to Scripture??? As for a proper & right concept of Sola Scriptura, may I suggest “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”?

    No one comes to hyperpreterism through Christian history since as I’ve stated before ALL of Christian history (not just creeds & confessions) stand against what hyperpreterism proposes. Now, yes some people DO come to hyperpreterism by reading the Bible Alone…but so do some people come to freewillism, anti-trinitarianism, Mormonism, & all other sorts of “isms” — but its not the Bible’s fault these people fall into these errors. The Bible clearly says WHY people (even sincere people) fall into these errors:

    Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked — (2 Pet 3:14-17)

    When we stop being of “like-mind” with Christ & the great cloud of witnesses, the Church & instead start to become Proverbs 26:12 guys who think we know it all, with our degrees & huge libraries & our supposed “logic”, then we surely will fall.

    I prefer Psalm 131:1
    LORD, my heart is not haughty, Nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, Nor with things too profound for me.

    Just as with my Reformed belief that God chooses who will be saved, if I’m going to be wrong, I’d rather be wrong by giving the Sovereignty of God too much credit. I would rather propose that God’s plan & Jesus’ coming the first time to reveal that plan was successful & clear to the Church than to claim that 2000 years of Christianity have missed the boat.

    I love Scripture, but Scripture in the hands of people who disconnect themselves from the TOTALITY of the Christian witness can knowingly or unknowingly twist that same Scripture to their destruction.

    A person isn’t going to proof-text themselves out of heresy. One last comment.

    Doug Wilson helped contribute to a book published in 2004 called, “When Shall These Things Be? — A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism”, on page 256 he says:

    If someone were to maintain that God did not know the location of a particular town in South Dakota, & we were to debate with this person, the resultant debate would not be over geography. In the same way, before we can understand our debates with hyper-preterists, we have to recognize that it is not fundamentally a debate about eschatology at all. The fundamental question is one of authority.

    Keep this in mind as we see all the hyperpreterists calling for Scripture. What one proof-text will the freewiller accept to change his mind? What one proof-text do you think the hyperpreterist will accept? We MUST first discuss the over-arching premise, in both cases you can see how the freewiller AND the hyperpreterist question the authority/sovereignty of God. Both the freewiller & the hyperpreterist must first be humbled. I & many others know from experience.

  8. Notice how Markie fails to address a single point made in my article, but merely re-iterates what he said in his previous comment.

    Butch: “See window, jump!”

    Wang: “There’s no window, Butch We’re looking at a blank wall.”

    Butch: “See window, jump!”

    In other words, he’s in his own little world. And yet he has the temerity to call Jesus a liar.

    Phil, this is the kind of mentality we’re dealing with.

    Brian

  9. Hi Phil,

    As usual – great questions.

    1). What specifically convinced you to believe that 2000 years of biblical interpretation was wrong regarding the second coming of Christ?

    I think what influenced me was there was so little out there on eschatology, so I viewed this as a topic just coming to light in the Church but over the years that just didn’t sit well with me because this was such a critical topic that I eventually had a hard time believing the Holy Spirit would not have revealed it. When I realized that those in the 1st century came past AD70 with a futurist view, it drove me to reconsider my position.

    2). What specifically convinced you (ex believers in Full Preterism) that Jesus didn’t return in 70AD.

    I accepted preterism as the best answer for a time but I was very uneducated in a lot of doctrines. I thought with time that there would be a more unified response to questions I held. The resurrection was a big issue for me and for a long time I held a form of corporate body view. I spent time reading the position of Stephens, Harding & Hibbard on the rapture theory and that didn’t work for me. I kept watching the debates and saw sound arguments in all sorts of views but as time went by it seemed to look more and more like trying to cram unresolved issues into AD70, than allowing the texts to speak for themselves. That along with my laundry list of unresolved issues drove me back to scripture this last year. I will say scripturally that Yomi and I agree in areas we wouldn’t have agreed upon earlier.

    Deconstructing hyper-preterism requires a lot of time and effort but I am convinced scripturally that it is most certainly not correct. It appears to me that HP holds a lot of confusion on the Kingdom of God and I will say Todd has been diligent about bringing the Cross back into focus.

    3). What would it take to convince those who currently believe that all was not fulfilled in 70AD to abandon this belief system?

    While in that system, I literally had to stop trying to fit everything into AD70 and let scripture speak and recognize there were parts and pieces that just didn’t fit and while I denied it as a HP, I finally did see how it resulted in a universalist view and I couldn’t leave fast enough. It helped that I was pretty busy for a year and when I returned because I was shocked to see just how wacky some of the things were that were being seriously considered. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised, it led me to consider some wacky things. Shoot if you believe the Church has lied to you all these years, then what else did they sweep under the carpet? That’s the mindset I ran into a lot and that question alone should give people pause.

  10. Notice how Brian can’t answer my questions. And sorry Brian, but it’s your words that are in direct contradiction to Christ’s, not mine.

    [Brian] Only some things written would be fulfilled.

    [Jesus] All things written would be fulfilled.

    I know who I’m standing with.

    This is typical of Brian. Ignoring the questions and continuing the rhetoric in a demeaning manner “proving” that he is superior. Brian’s article is easily refuted. I intend on responding with an article on our site.

    How can anyone have an amicable discussion with anyone who is so demeaning and who calls us heretics? This is also allowed by the moderator. What does this say about the moderation? Phil asks preterists for respect, but gives us none in return.

    Phil: I’ve asked for a respectful discussion. I’ve asked for Scripture. I have NEVER ONCE called you or anyone else in this discussion a “heretic”.

    In my opinion, this is not a search for truth, but a modern day witch hunt. I’m just grateful that they can’t get away with burning us at the stake anymore.

    I’m done wasting my time with such disrespect. For serious and civil discussions, please join us at the Sovereign Grace Preterist website. We will do our best to answer your questions without all of the name calling.

    Sincerely,

    –Mark

    Phil: I thought you already were done “wasting time”. Thanks for stopping by….again

  11. Phil,

    I never once accused you of calling us a heretic. However, you allow others here to do just that. Why?
    Phil: That’s their opinion of your theology Mark. Ever been to a seminary? That term gets tossed around in nearly every “discussion” I’ve ever heard or taken part in.

    Would you allow someone to talk to your wife like that, and then invite them back into your home? I think not.

    This is one of the main reasons for my departing this forum.

    We are to share the truth in love and with respect. Neither of which is happening here by allowing the name calling and disrespectful behavior.

    Ciao

    –Mark

    Phil: Mark. You need to toughen up a bit. I think preaching to the choir at SGP has made you soft lol. Jesus used far worse terms then “heretic” when confronting false teachers. Paul Jude James John and Peter also used harsh language and engaged in “name calling” that was far worse then what you are objecting to here.

    Mark. No one gets called more names then me at this site. In this disussion I have had my integrity challenged and questioned by some from BOTH sides. I certainly don’t like it but it comes with the territory.

    Also. You said Jesus said “all will be fufilled”. Care to share chapter and verse and clarify your position because that’s a fairly broad statement to make.

  12. Hi Mark,

    Can’t answer your questions! I’ve been exegetically refuting Hyper-Preterism for two years. I’ve written dozens of articles which prove your position false, and there isn’t a single area I haven’t covered. Anyhow, it’s not a matter of “not answering questions,” because I have no problem debating this position with anyone who cares to step up to the plate. If you guys would like to host a debate, I’ll tackle any one of your number. All I need is a time and date.

    Brian

  13. Phil,

    Again, your cordiality is noted. You are welcome to post at SGP at any time (Jason and I talked about it…no problem. We welcome your spirit).

    Finally, it was recommended that Keith Mathison’s book, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” be read concerning the creeds. This is the same Keith Mathison who, quoting from Andrew Sandlin, makes the Creeds the “bounderies” of the Scripture (unquote). “Scripture must (!) be interpreted within the bounderies of creedal orthodoxy” (Mathison). If not, then the Bible, by itself, “necessarily sinks into the sea of subjectivity and thereby lose any claim to absolute authority.” Get that? Not only is this a contradiction, but it is patently anti-Sola Scriptura.

    If a person reads the Bible alone, the Bible cannot have “absolute authority” over him without Mama Creeds. The contradiction is in the fact that the Bible in Mathison’s view NEVER has absolute authority, for they are set “within” creedal orthodoxy! If something is a “boundery”, then that “boundery” GOVERNS the thing that is “bound.” Contradiction.

    In Calvin’s view (as I have quoted in here before – “study to show yourself approved” blog), the Bible is the governor of the traditions and councils. IT checks THEM, not THEY keep IT in check. So, when someone says, “hey, I don’t place this authority in creeds” and then says, “read Mathison” someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.

    I say, with many in here, including the site owner, “What does the BIBLE say…?” Wilson and Mathison (high church Reformed theologians) are to be rejected at this point.

    Sam Frost
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  14. Oops — a couple of problems there Mark, SGP website is

    1) member only (we couldn’t comment if we wanted to)
    2) hardly a neutral forum of discussion
    3) moderatored by guys who are so disrespectful that they personally name call (such as calling people “boobs” & “Goderick” & so on. (btw, “heretic” is a TECHNICAL term for someone who is trying to divide Christians from historic Christian doctrine — I’d say hyperpreterism certainly fits that)

    Naa, I’ll pass on interacting on a forum like SGP that won’t even let some of their fellow hyperpreterists be members. What’s up with that? Is SGP trying to keep their little island free of the liberals who dominate hyperpreterism? A last haven for & hope for hyperpreterism before it completely drowns in its own “logical” conclusions???

  15. Rod’s post is nothing more than an attack on the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. Same ole’ Popish stuff repeated over and over and over again.

    And don’t be fooled by Roderick’s appeal to a “reform” faith in this regards. There are many reform men (Robbins, Reymond) who have taken issue with Mathison’s popish argument, which is all Rod is parroting.

    Folks, do your research. Read Mathison’s attack of Robert Reymond. There is no univocal “reform” voice on this issue.

    If rod had actually done his homework before latching on to Mathison, he’d understand the connection between the scripturalist and non-empirical epistemology of Clark, Robbins, and for the most part Reymond, vs guys like Mathison and his mentor vanTil whose empirical epistemology, by definition, BEGINS WITH SELF; and thus places man in a position of priority over God.

    He states, “Now, yes some people DO come to hyperpreterism by reading the Bible Alone…but so do some people come to freewillism, anti-trinitarianism, Mormonism, & all other sorts of “isms””

    Rod decries logic because it would destroy this perfect example of a fallacy. A fallacy that is asserting that since some people wrongly interpreted Scripture, Scripture is incapable of communicating clearly on its own.

    Roderick is operating under a delusion that if we add a large number of people to the process and can all agree on something, this necessarily makes it true.

    Free-willism is wrong, according to SCRIPTURE.
    Anti-Trinity is wrong, according to SCRIPTURE.

    Not that difficult.

    Mormonism? ROFL. Give me a break. I don’t know of a single person who took a bible alone and arrived at Mormonism. Mormonism rests on the teachings of a man 1800+ years later. How in the world can Scripture alone lead to that? This is the same ole tired argument Rod uses to throw in all the goofball names to associate with preterists. It doesn’t even make sense – he just needs to throw Mormon into everything.

    Preterist has a swift, immediate answer to Mormonism – false prophet.

    Wanna play this association game? Let’s not even get into their fleshly idea of kingdom and future end. ( ;

  16. Wonder why Jesus hand-picked apostles to teach the church its “traditions” 2 Thes 2:15 — why didn’t He just give every person the same ability to conclude the same thing?
    What is Eph 4:11-15 for? Naaaah, let’s just all chuck 2000 years worth of Christianity & latch on to something as foreign as YES, Mormonism. I’ll keep repeating it because it is TRUE. What hyperpreterism advocates is diametrically opposed to everything that has EVER been considered Christian. I don’t care how many M.A.Rs a person has affixed to his name or how many “esteemed” authors someone quotes or how much “logic” someone thinks they are using.

    Was it “logical” by man’s logic for God to create a planet & then shortly after wipe out all life save 8 souls? Was it “logical” for God to give Ten COMMANDS, knowing full well that no one could actually keep those COMMANDS? Was it “logical” for God to send Himself to die for people who yet did not love Him until He first loved them????

    Don’t come here & spout all of your school-boy “logic” — Christians, starting with Peter have become Christians “not because flesh & blood had revealed it” (not because they were convinced by some smooth & flattering argument) but because the Father in Heaven has GRANTED us to believe (John 6:64-66).

    I am soooo sick of little wanna-be Luthers running around thinking that the Reformation was about chucking everything & starting over. Luther & the other Reformers would have opposed your “enthusiast” radicalism as much as the opposed it in their day (see link).

  17. Funny Roderick that you quote the very same context that i just used in a recent video for my friends over at HolyCultureRadio to plead with them to stop accommodating science to scripture and just preach the Gospel, understanding that God decrees the results and we are not to manipulate things, thinking we can create a better defense than God’s own Word.

    Apparently you got something out of the video. Great!

    And yes folks, stalker here tracked down the site and went over there to “introduce” himself right after i made this video. We all know how much Rod loves hiphop. Funny that of all of the christian hiphop sites, he shows up on that one – never having posted there and just oozing with a love for rap.

    Who are you even talking to? Certainly not me.

    Also, Roderick here obviously doesn’t understand “logic”, or at least is using the term in a fashion i’m not.

    He says, “Was it “logical” by man’s logic for God to create a planet & then shortly after wipe out all life save 8 souls? Was it “logical” for God to give Ten COMMANDS, knowing full well that no one could actually keep those COMMANDS? Was it “logical” for God to send Himself to die for people who yet did not love Him until He first loved them????”

    What the heck does that even mean? “Man’s logic”? Man’s logic is no different than God’s. You’re starting to sound just like those emergent folks you can’t stand.

    Man is created in the image of God; man is the image of God. Man was created to think rationally.

    Those laws being:

    – The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.
    – The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.
    – The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.

    (Maybe you should spend more time studying that instead of stalking me on other sites.)

    With logic defined as such, then no, there was absolutely nothing in the flood judgment, giving of commands, and death of Christ that was “illogical”.

    I don’t even know who you’re griping with. Sounds like you have an imaginary enemy in your room or something.

    Unless you are suggesting that God is irrational, then you are obviously using the word “logic” differently than i am.

    Lastly, once again, you reveal that you are arguing an imaginary person in your room or something….ummm, rod…are you ok? Seriously? Who here suggested that Luther chucked everything and started over? I think you’re hearing voices.

    You can’t produce a single quote of Sam or I attributing that to Luther, so knock it off.

    you’re a babbling fool.

    ~Phil, is that tough enough? (;

    Phil: Yea, that was pretty tough Jason….and I wasn’t referring to you when I told Mark he needs to “toughen up” and you know that.

  18. oh, one last thing: Phil is a member at SGP. So much for Roderick’s fuss about how we supposedly silence our opponents and so much for his claims that we cater to any and everyone in the pret world.

    Phil, i told you from day one that this guy is nothing but trouble. This is what he thrives off of. It has nothing to do with eschatology. The guy WILL SAY ANYTHING to slander and tear people down.

  19. Wow for all of Jason’s “spouting” he neglected to look at my JOIN DATE on that website he claims I’m stalking him on:
    see link Look to the right see it says Join Date 08-07-2008.

    Plus Jason I’ve been using John 6:64-68 in defense of Calvinism/Reformed Theology probably longer than since you were a pimple-faced teen-ager so come off it.

    As for God’s logic & man’s logic — yes they DO sometimes collide, that’s what the whole Jobian account is about. Job was upset because by his “human logic” the things that were happening to him shouldn’t have been…in his eyes, it wasn’t “fair”. But then God steps in & basically asks Job who does he think he is. God is God & we are not. I’m sorry you are not learning this Jason, perhaps a little less time hanging around hyperpreterists & atheists.

    As for Sam & just about every other hyperpreterist thinking the Reformation was about STARTING SOMETHING NEW, I direct you to Sam’s own verbal comments where he even thinks heretics are responsible for giving us the doctrine of the trinity (see link) What a distorted view of Christian history it takes to be a hyperpreterist.

    Lastly, I appreciate that you let Phil slip in on your site but what about all your fellow hyperpreterists that you deny entry? I mean, if hyperpreterism is about questioning the very foundation of Christianity as it is, then who are you guys to tell your fellow hyperpreterists that they can only go so far & no more??? Why can’t hyperpreterist universalists, & postmodernist hyperpreterists, & Covenant Creationist hyperpreterists have an open seat? Why can’t they “challenge” you? Why don’t you let non-member people comment?

    You are partially correct about something Jason, my issue with hyperpreterism ISN’T limited to “eschatology” because hyperpreterism ISN’T limited to eschatology. It’s arrogant premise of claiming 2000 years of Christianity has been grossly wrong, affects EVERYTHING, apparently starting with the ego of the very advocates.

  20. Phil, gr8 questions.
    I am considering the whole debate on eschatology and would like to point out some things.

    1) The witness of 2000 years of Christianity is not authoritative, there is no reason to believe what people agreed upon unless the Bible says so. That having been said we need to apply reasoning a bit further. Jesus gave the Church His apostles and we believe the apostles got the message right. Not only do we believe the apostles got the message right but we also believe that they taught it clearly and it was understood correctly by the church in general. AD70 comes the temple is destroyed and Christianity continues. John the apostle is alive after this and continues teaching. We thus expect that the truth in regard to the events around AD70 and the future of the church should have been known by someone after AD70 and immediately after the death of John the apostle.
    This is assumed true, it seems incredible that true Bible interpretation and eschatology would just vanish with no trace. Hence even though we do not hold creeds with an authoritative voice I believe an explanation (a strong one for that) is needed to explain why full preterism is totally different to historic Christianity.
    Terms are redefined into definitions they have never had in all of Christianity.
    So while we agree that history is not authoritative, it seems dubious that we have a new breed of Christianity. This is what raises a caution light and cannot be brushed aside by saying creeds are not authoritative. Where did the truth go?
    This is a call for humility. Even if there was never to be a Scriptural refutation of full preterism this fact should bring humility.

    The call is made that all that matters is what the Bible says. However we must be aware that we can make mistakes in logic, assumptions etc. As an example in Mathematics there are sets, some are open some are closed etc. At face value one would think that a set which is cloes cannot be open i.e. not -A must be A. However there are sets which are called “clopen sets” i.e. they are both open and closed (e..g. an empty set).
    Sorry for the Maths but I hope my point is made, let us not be so proud that if we think a Scripture says one thing then it can’t mean another.

    A comment on Mark’s post #5 “If the first century Thessalonian Christians did not receive what Paul promised them, then Paul gave them a false hope and is therefore not inspired. ”
    This is the type of reasoning I am saying we should be afraid of. Maybe it did happen maybe it did not but even if it did not happen Pauls inspiration should not be question, only our understanding.
    Paul in 1 Thes 4 says “we who are alive” in reference to the coming of Jesus. To take a narrow view one would have to conclude that Paul (and everyone alive when he wrote the letter) had to be alive when Jesus was to return. However we know that Paul was dead in AD70 so whether the coming is past or future Paul was not included in those who were alive even though he had said “we who are alive”. My point is simply this, let us be humble about Scripture. let us not think we know it all, let us allow the testimony of 2000 years of Christianity to make us cautiuos about what we believe and throw away.
    The day full preterism can answer where the truth about eschatology disappeared, that is the day when the call to discard early Christian history can be taken seriously.

    2) I do not think it can be refuted (in a preterist paradigm)that Jesus came in AD70 or that AD70 was the end of the age. However full preterism need not be the logical conclusion of the preteristic paradigm. There are too many questions that arise and too much cramming everything into AD70 and too much depending on time texts to settle the issue to the extent that it seems the verses are not allowed to speak for themselves. Again I think we should be humble and honest enough to acknowledge these

    As for how one abandons a particular view it is a call to humility and solid answers to the questions on the topic. Those who believe Jesus is yet to come must show the verse for that while those who say all was fulfilled have to explain where that truth disappeared to (in addition to other complexities in the FP camp).

    Hopefully we will have answers from both camps, or maybe we should abandon the preteristic paradigm altogether.

  21. Phil,

    As is common, especially among Emergents, there must be a deprecation of logic, pitting “human logic” versus “God’s logic.” I guess, “All men are mortal, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates is mortal” is different for man and God. Van Til, anyone? What is the conclusion Roderick wants us to come to? It is this: Was it logical for God to announce a soon return of Christ only to not happen? I used a logical argument to a Mormon once, and I will never forget his response: “What’s GOd got to do with logic”? Bingo. Sure sign of a crumbling defense.

    As for members on SGP, any non-preterist is allowed to join, so long as he is cordial and respectful, even though he may strongly, strongly disagree with us. Phil is not the only non-preterist member. There are a few others. But, they don’t blather on like some (and for name-calling, please…”pup”). As for some preterists that we do not have as members, same thing. It’s a character issue. Some actually want to engage in meaningful dialogue. Some do not. Those who just want to spout, dey get dah boot. But, I have been banned from so many “anti” preterist sites.

    Appreciate it, Phil, and like I said, you are more than welcome to post challenging articles….you are doing a great job (even though I know that you do not “side” with us in the slightest). Some folks just don’t know how to do that.

    Samuel Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  22. Well said Sam. This has been Rod’s problem since the first day i have known him. He is incapable of mature discussion with people he opposes theologically.

    He doesn’t understand how we can do it, so he gets mad and frustrated. And then he creates a blog posting one hateful thing after another, speculating as to what we do. Rod doesn’t give a rip about anybody but himself and the small band of immature wackos that validate him. This is why he’s getting banned left and right, even on sites that would probably affirm his eschatological views, whatever it is.

    I thought Rod had me and my motivations all figured out, so why is he asking me questions?

    “Guests” are not allowed to post, because many, like Rod here, would simply hit and run, posting all kinds of vile. Phil here moderates as well. I guess he’s a coward too. ::Rollseyes::

    Bottom line is, as clearly stated on the frontpage, if one can join, opposing our views, but respectfully dialogue, you are welcomed.

    This is why some preterists are not allowed. And this is why Phil is a member in good standing. Phil can post criticisms of Preterism all he wants. I encouraged him to do so since day one. And i am confident that he will not lower himself to the tactics Rod has taken, or the tactics a few preterists have done with Sam and I. Really not that hard to figure out. And rod, since you obviously don’t want to post there, stop whining about.

    Rod states, “As for God’s logic & man’s logic — yes they DO sometimes collide”

    Stop right there. To say that God’s logic sometimes collides with man’s immediately reveals that you are using the word logic differently than i am. Therefore, your comment doesn’t apply to me.

    Lastly, you fuss again, “Wow for all of Jason’s “spouting” he neglected to look at my JOIN DATE on that website he claims I’m stalking him on:”

    How do you know i neglected to look at it. See folks – my omniscient here knows everything i do.

    I knew you joined back in August. And i know where to find the dates. Hello, i’ve been a member of that site for years now – even longer than is indicated on my profile because they have reset the forum over the years.

    Absolutely nowhere in my post did i say anything about when you joined. I said that you went over there to “introduce” yourself. That was your first post.

    Get a dictionary – look it up.

    You are only over there because i have referred to the site, and you followed me, just like you’ve done with so many other preterists, only to stir up trouble and spread your hatred. If you are so dang interested in hiphop and getting to know those people, why have you not posted a single thing since August?

    I think i know why. You’re not interested. You’re only interesting in trying to drive a wedge between me and then, and guess what – it’s not going to work. I have friends over there that have known me for over 6 years, including a few of the admins. They won’t put up with your crap.

    nice try. now run along little man and gossip somewhere else.

  23. Thanks Jefrey, those are EXACTLY the sentiments many of former-hyperpreterists have been trying to express. No one is calling for Creeds over Scripture, but hyperpreterists MUST admit their position is not historically Christian. To me that is the HONEST starting point. We really can’t get too much further with them if they keep dodging this issue or revisioning history.

    I know one hyperpreterist leader named Ed Stevens has tried to answer the question by claiming there was a first-century rapture that removed all of the so-called “first-rank” Christians leaving only so-called “second-rank” Christians to maintain the Church. First, this does a number on soteriology since now you have “saved” people & “kind of saved” people. Secondly, it goes against the fact that Jesus said not even the gates of hades would prevail against the Church but in this theory you would have to believe the Church was completely removed from the face of planet at almost the very moment of its inception, even if just for a millisecond until the second-rankers actually became all the way saved. Thirdly, it keeps going back to the hyperpreterist notion that we have to believe there has been a 2000 year conspiracy to believe in hyperpreterism.

    The book by Stevens is called “Expectations Demands A First-Century Rapture” though the original title was “Silence Demands A First-Century Rapture”. He dropped that title realizing it sounded too much like a conspiracy theory from the get-go. The link to the book is: http://www.amazon.com/Expectations-Demand-First-Century-Rapture/dp/B000BZ4RLC if you are interested.

  24. Hi Jefrey,

    Well, you managed to say what I was saying in 4 posts – in one. Good job. 🙂

    The reason the creeds get thrown on the table is that most Christians today have no clue what the historical Church has taught. Those creeds and confessions bring a lot of light to history. They can serve to keep a “babe” from getting too far off track. We also learn a lot by questioning them. So, imho, they are a valuable tool.

    I don’t know of one of us here who hold the creeds “above” scripture. To claim we do is at best a misrepresentation, or at worst, an out and out lie. The reason people get so dogmatic in this discussion is because the HP’s know the creeds are a huge hurdle for them to cross and I want to make sure it serves as a huge caution flag warning to those considering it.

    Like you, I hold that there is too much that just can’t be crammed into AD70 and we need to let the verses speak. When I brought that forward in the HP camp, I was told I was in sin and anyone reading me would be a “waist” of time. Of course, he meant waste….but the point being, there are HP’s who do consider their eschatology to be a salvation issue.

    So thus you see them spout, if God didn’t do what He said He would when (we say) He said He would, then God lied and if you don’t believe Him, then you are in sin and denial of God’s word. That’s the mindset of hyper-preterism. When they apply than lens to scripture, it’s almost impossible to deal with them with scripture because they just can’t “see” beyond their paradigm and thus everything has to “fit” within their scope.

  25. The creeds and early church writings are important because they bear witness to what was believed in the early centuries. Hyper-Prets have to take the historic witness into account, for they’ve claimed that the apostles had a “first century expectation” of Christ’s return. This justifies some kind of historical investigation. The problem with Hyper-Prets is that they won’t accept any “evidence” that proves their theories wrong.

    After all is said in favoir of their view, Hyper-Preterists still can’t explain HOW the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 satifised the expectations of Christ’s return. There is no evidence in the post-apostolic writings that anyone equated Christ’s parousia with the destruction of the temple. Unless it can be shown that early Christians acknowledged this event as a fulfillment of Christ’s parousia, then it cannot have been the focal point of their expectations. This is common sense.

    Remember, the first-century Christians were basing their expectations on Christ’s prophetic discourses. If they really understood the destruction of the temple as the sign of Christ’s return, they why didn’t they acknowledge it as such??? Instead, we find them still looking for His return after A.D. 70!

    The biggest hurdle for Hyper-Prets to get over is the nagging question of WHY these “first century expectations” had no practical realization in the destruction of the temple. In my studies I’ve found a marked disparity between the historic facts concerning the destruction of the temple and the early-Christian expectations regarding Christ’s return. This disparity reveals that the Preterist theory is false.

    Brian

  26. This is what I find quite funny. The Creeds are not “above” the Scripture, but to venture outside the Creeds, one is a “heretic.” Huh? Mathison states that the Creeds are the “bounderies.” Bounderies BIND things, they say, “this far and no further.” That’s what a boundery does. Get it? If they are bounderies, there is no “questioning” them.

    You folks seem to think that we are not familiar with Church History. I majored in it from two ORTHODOX Reformed seminaries. I have read all of the Apostolic Fathers, all of the Nicene, Post Nicene fathers. But, you forget, these boys weren’t the whole shooting match. We have tons of literature from the Pseudepigrapha, the Christian Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., etc. Yes, by all means, DO A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION! Read how many “eschatologies” there were. Read how they interpreted Matthew 24 early on (it wasn’t A.D. 70). See, this is where Brian Simmons has you by the pony tail, for all of you “orthodox preterists” out there. As far as “history” goes, Simmons will win.

    But, Biblical Christians do not start with historical investgation. That’s what Empiricists do. I start with the only sure Foundation: the Bible, THEN I read history and interpret history BY the Bible (Augustinianism). I find anything else to be mere lip service to Sola Scriptura, like one person said, “The Bible AND history.” Well, what’s SOLA about that? The Bible is the Supreme Judge in ALL matters of faith and practice, period (Westminster Confession).

    This is what I would like to see. Some appear to be afraid to admit the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (cited above). And, in fact, has sought to revise it (talk about revisionism). But, as I have stated several times, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not in the least prove Biblical Preterism. It’s a separate doctrine. We never used it to prove preterism. However, and what our opponents shiver about, is that if Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the Supreme Judge in ALL matters of faith and practice, then immediately and logically, the Creeds and “2,000 years of Church History” are made subject to BIBLICAL investigation because they “have and may err” (Westminster Confession, 33.3). One can see, then, where the phrase logically derives from: Semper Reformanda (“always reforming”). This does not mean “always changing”. It means always testing our doctrine to see if it be Truth. This “test” as Calvin called it was bringing it to “the test of Scripture” (Calvin, unquote). I test the Trinity. It always comes up on top. I test the inerrancy of Scripture, no argument I have seen assails it. In fact, bring on new ones, bring on new arguments, bring on new evidence, the Bible will demolish them.

    So, if the Second Coming is future, and if Jesus is to appear some day physically, bodily, and the flesh of the every dead person from Adam onward is to be reunited with its former soul, then the Bible, apart from Creeds, Councils, or Fathers, apart from 2,000 years of Church History, ought to be able to loudly and with all perspicuity say that. To hide behind creeds and church history is not the way of the Christian. The way of the Christian is, “you do err, and know not the Scriptures. Here, let me show you why you err. Do you have a Bible with you.” THAT’s how you battle errors and heresy. THAT’s how a Christian does it.

    Give me a Bible and give me David Koresh and he’ll be finished in minutes. Give me a Mormon. Done in seconds. JW’s, gone. Transubstantiation, obliterated. Word of Faith Movement, easy to dismantle. Give me a Bible, God’s word, and let the Scriptures do the talking. Anything else is just piddle.

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  27. “The reason the creeds get thrown on the table is that most Christians today have no clue what the historical Church has taught.”

    Dorothy, that may be the case, but again, don’t assume that is the case for all of us. I don’t appreciate people who find an area of weakness in others and/or in themselves, and then want to project that problem on to everyone else.

    “I don’t know of one of us here who hold the creeds “above” scripture. To claim we do is at best a misrepresentation, or at worst, an out and out lie.”

    Question: Have you read Mathison’s book? I bring up Mathison because that is who Rod appealed to.

    Have you read the criticisms of Mathison, by REFORMED people, who have called his argument nothing more than a return to Rome?

    I had friends who formed a Reformed ministry down in Tampa years ago. Two of the members wanted to turn the ministry into a preterist hate group after i was ordained, and starting writing articles against Sam and I, calling us “cultic” and so on.

    One of the guys, Tyler Hicks, merely parroted Mathison’s argument. After exposing that mess for what it was, they began infighting. One of these men, a strong supralapsarian Calvinist; postmillennialist; eats, breathes, and sleeps off Rushdoony, Whitefield, Clark, and others; would literally rip Rod in half with his parroting of Mathison. He and a few others did so with these two and the group ended up splitting.

    NOT because members were turning over to preterism, but because there were huge disagreements with Mathison’s redefinition of sola Scriptura.

    So for anyone to suggest our criticisms are just a bunch of ignorant, preterist attempts to avoid the obvious is sorely mistaken.

    Back to the question: Have you read Mathison’s book?

  28. Regarding the historic Christian faith:
    One, I love the Triune God and have commited my life to HIM, not the “historic Christian faith.”
    Two, for Brian Simmons, I have listened to your stuff and read your stuff, and while some good points are made, for you to say that you have refuted preterism completely with your exegesis is quite presumptuous (who has the problem with intellectual pride again?)
    Three, I have no problem with people calling me hyperpreterist, heretic, or unsaved (they’ll be judged for there statements if they are wrong), but name calling (pup, Sam’s house of horrors, amateur theologians) are all things unbecoming of a true Christian (“and you will know them by their fruit”–)
    Four, postmillenialism and premillenialism, while ending in the same thing, are two totally different Christianities. They have completely different definitions of the world, the church, the covenant, and what Christ has accomplished.
    Lastly, in the end I have attributed more to the work of Christ as a hyperpreterist. I have not stripped Him of anything He has done or any part of who He is. Christ is Lord of my life and Lord of this world whether He’s coming back bodily or not. And if He is coming back again bodily, its a good thing patience is a fruit of the spirit cause man, what a long line that will be to get to shake that man’s hand!
    In Christ,
    Chris Winn

  29. Jason,

    I never said “all” don’t have a clue, I am saying that there are new members who are recruited who have no clue. The downplaying of this issue in HP should not be ignored because it is a huge issue. Big difference. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    I didn’t hear about your problems in Tampa, but I did hear through the preterist grapevine that Sam’s church disintegrated with the allegations that the group was considered evil and satanic. I believed about half of what I heard. So, if that’s not what you’re speaking about, then no, I wasn’t aware of your problems.

    While you rage against Rod, this I will say. That while I was in TAMPA for the majority of a year, with a preemie grandson who was born weighing 2 pounds, and my daugher’s dialysis 3 times a week and her 6 surgeries & tranplant, I never once had an HP grace the doorstep of that hospital but Rod was on the phone offering support quite regularly. I had already witnessed Rod’s moral outrage at those who allowed every wind of doctrine to be promoted in HP, then I witnessed his empathy with my personal circumstances, and let me tell ya, it’s when life gets “real” that you find out who holds God’s agape love demonstrated in compassion. So you can rail against Rod all you want, but the testimony of his actions speak on his behalf. Imho, that’s an area where you lack understanding.

    Mathison – no I haven’t read his work and don’t have it on the agenda to read. Now when he has all 4 responses to his book and responds, that may be worth a read because I think it will reveal how divided the movement really is.

  30. Eigthday,
    I’ve listened to some of Sam’s lessons/sermons from his days as a pastor of his former church. While his views you obviously disagree with (and I didn’t totally agree with him either) he taught from the bible and showed a lot of humility regarding his views. Satanic? Evil? Are you kidding me? Those are laughable accusations and rumors that aren’t really worth anyone’s time. Sorry to hear about your grandchild, not sure how long ago that was, but I’ll lift up a prayer for you. In Christ
    Chris Winn

  31. Hi Chris,

    When I say I’ve “refuted” Hyper-Preterism, I basically mean that I’ve refuted it to my own satisfaction (and for the benefit of those who accept the simple staments of Scripture as authoritative). I already know, from experience, that the majority of Full Preterists would probably not bat an eye to my arguments. But this doesn’t touch the merits of anti-preterism.

    For the most part, I agree with Sam that the “Bible alone” is sufficient, and not creeds. The creeds simply bear witness to what Christians have historically believed. They are useful, though they have no authority other than that of a “witnessing tool.” I’ve used them primarily to show historic continuity between apostolic doctrine and that which we (Pre-Millennialists) teach today.

    As for the Pre-Mil/Post-Mil stuff, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say they are “two different Christianities.” There have been issues over regarding evanglelism which I think are important. But as long as Post-Millennialists are really preaching the Gospel, and not merely trying to renovate the outer shell of society, I think Pre-Mils and Post-Mils can get along fine.

    Brian

  32. The scriptures themselves brought me to the conclusion that the preterist vein of interpretation was the correct one. How can I step out on a limb and claim to be right when everyone else is wrong? Tell me how many different Christian denominations there are. Have you ever studied the reformation? How could a Christian organization like the Catholic Church murder so many men, women, and children? Would you ask me to believe the doctrine of unrepentant murderers? Pray tell me, who is right? If the truth were known, wouldn’t all of the denominations merge into one in embracing the truth. I don’t claim to have it all figured out, but I am working and praying on it. I long to have the same faith as Peter, Paul, and John. It is my own belief that I have found it in preterism. Maybe you believe that you have found it in your own denomination or non-denomination. I certainly wouldn’t belittle you for what you believe as long as you do no harm to others. If there is a literal lake of fire to burn in for all eternity, I would rather go for what I believe rather than for what you believe. This is off of the subject, but have you ever considered that the Satan (or adversary) that was defeated in AD 70 might have been the cult of Judaism as practiced in the First Century? Was this not a ministry of death? I do believe that the slaughter of animals took place in Jerusalem’s Temple. Paul was constantly threatened and beaten by the people who practiced this cult. Could the messenger of Satan sent to buffet him possibly have been a member of this cult? The big issue of his day was the issue of who were the sons of God and who were the sons of darkness. Were the sons of darkness defeated in AD 70? I think so. I certainly don’t look to the words of Caiphus for my doctrine. I do, however, look to the writers of the New Testament who were delivered of their enemies and did rise victorious over their tormenters who were Jews and Romans who were enlisted to aid them in their battle against Christians. I have gone on longer than I had intended. I apoligize. I am not a minister I am only a child of God in search of Truth.

  33. “The downplaying of this issue in HP should not be ignored because it is a huge issue.”

    It’s not ignored. That is my whole point. Stop saying we ignore it. Just because you ignored it as a pret, doesn’t mean we did or do.

    “I did hear through the preterist grapevine that Sam’s church disintegrated with the allegations that the group was considered evil and satanic.”

    Why would you even post something like this? You don’t have a clue what went on, so stop speculating.

    “I never once had an HP grace the doorstep of that hospital”

    I didn’t even know you, for crying out loud! Do you know how ridiculous you sound. Hey wait, you never visited my wife and i in New Orleans when my firstborn died in my arms. Oh, that’s right, you didn’t even know me.

    sheeshh. You’re going to get on to me for something people might have been unaware of!?

    And that has absolutely nothing to do with the baloney Rod is pulling now. You don’t have all the emails. You weren’t in on phone conversations. You don’t see what he is doing other places.

    Is that what this is all about? You guys leaving because of gossip, slander, speculation, and so forth? Dorothy, please stop with this nonsense.

    I’m dealing with what is right in front of me, and what Rod is doing is wrong, plain and simple.

    I’m done talking to you. You obviously, like him, will say anything to destroy people.

  34. Eighthday,

    not sure of who you are, or if you ever contacted us. You wrote, “I didn’t hear about your problems in Tampa, but I did hear through the preterist grapevine that Sam’s church disintegrated with the allegations that the group was considered evil and satanic. I believed about half of what I heard.” Our church did not disisentigrate. We mutually disbanded by the council of the elders and congregation (the issue was funding. I am a business man. I ran a successful six figure income business in Orlando, and am now running one with 12 employees). This is simply another gross inaccuracy put out there by the ever so kind Roderick Edwards (I have graced many of hospitals…so what does that prove?). Let me put this out there for everyone to read. Preterists (there are hundreds down here in Florida) are widespread, geographically speaking. Distance was a major issue. Sometimes we would have 25 on a Sunday, and other times, 4. We tried to make something work, and, going into it, prayed all along, “if this be thy will.” We always held open the idea that this may not be the time for such a venture. But, the initial finances were there, and I drove from Orlando to Tampa every Sunday for the first year. We made HUGE sacrifices. We sold our business and house. My wife, God bless her, was fully supportive.

    The first two years were great. We launched two conferences (with Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock, and another with James B. Jordan). Both paid for themselves. The third year kicked in and things continued to run smoothly. However, many families, core families, had to travel a great deal. This was daunting. They wanted to be in a “local” church setting. I understood this. When certain core members, with our blessing, left, and when finances really began to get tight, I had to consider my own family. And, I had an issue for getting paid for doing this. At the beginning of the fourth year, we decided to disband and instead utilize all that we had in Reign of Christ Ministries (www.thereignofchrist.com) which eventually gave birth to Sovereign Grace Preterism website, a highly successful site that has gone since it started 7 months ago into something we NEVER imagined. If that is what God birthed through all of this, so be it. It was worth meeting Jason Bradfield, Mike Grace, Brian Mion and others. The bond between Jason, Mike and me is incredible.

    So, I started up the Janitorial business venture again in Tampa and God has blessed us beyond belief. In two years we are more successful now than we were in Orlando! I marvel at that. I give all glory to my Lord Jesus Christ.

    I still speak, am getting my Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary (even though I resigned from that seminary as it regards grading Hebrew exams and helping them with their Hebrew program – I’ll explain that in a minute), and am speaking at three preterist conferences (maybe four) this year…very active…VERY active (writing books, etc.). 2009 will be great.

    Now, I share that because you wrote that you heard things dealing with “satan” and “cultic.” Nah. You heard lies. You heard,probably, the ever so kind Roderick. I am hear to set that record STRAIGHT.

    Now, finally, as to the seminary. I resigned helping them because the ever so kind Roderick Edwards started a smear campaign against me by writing an e-mail to the board members and the Dean of the seminary. This created a bit of a stir, but the Dean was willing to hang on to me. After much prayer and grief, I approached the Dean with my resignation, deciding that it would be best if I was simply a student getting a Ph.D. than having any work capacity. I did this because I greatly respect the Dean and the Seminary and I do not want to be used as a lightning rod for a smear campaign that could inadvertantly hurt the seminary (even if the smears were wrong in nature, and wrong in motivation, also, wrong in jurisdiction). The Seminary does not in any way endorse Full Preterism. I have worked with them for several years and forged close bonds, and all was good until the ever so kind Roderick showed up. It’s all good, though. The Dean appreciated my motives and accepted the resignation at my request (we are still dear brothers in Christ…I love the man with great enthusiasm).

    So, that’s it in a nutshell….the straight poop.

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

    Phil: Dorothy is “8thday” Sam. That was her old tagline and when she became a contributer here she switched to Dorothy….somtimes the software gets confused. I try and catch it but sometimes I forget to do that….

  35. Hi Jason,

    I don’t believe Dorothy would say “anything to destroy someone”. She simply related what she believes to be true and Sam has cleared that up…..

    Good grief people. Can’t we just stick with the issues and the topics at hand and leave all the speculation and personal stuff aside?

    Thanks,

    Phil

  36. Sam,

    Jason ran on about how he was accused and I mentioned that I had heard your church was. While I didn’t pose it as an inquiry, the stories were similar enough that I mentioned what I heard and that I didn’t believe it all. Reason – those are common accusations when groups disband from HP. My thoughts ran more to the issue that maybe there was some confusion about events. I’m apologize if it came across that I was making disparaging remarks about your church. It was not intended in that manner.

    Also, Roderick was the not source of my information so you do owe him an apology. You made a false accusation there. I really didn’t know him that well when this all went down.

    As far as gracing the doorsteps of the hospital….well Sam, that was you who agreed to visit our daughter – July 2005. That’s when it became personal between us Sam and I must say that wound is still a little too fresh.

    I’m actually grateful for your actions today because they did serve me for good. Had you been there, I would probably have continued to sweep things under the rug that just didn’t fit and I wouldn’t have met Phil here who provided me a place to work and study in peace.

    Now, I’m going to do my best to lay the personal aside and move forward in refutuing HP. It would probably be best if you and Jason find something or someone else to occupy your time with and I do expect to see you apologize to Roderick. Your feet have become quite swift to accuse. He was most definitely not one of the sources.

  37. Brian,
    Thanks for your response brother. I was a bit curious at a comment you made though, “(and for the benefit of those who accept the simple staments of Scripture as authoritative).” So, are you implying that hyperpreterists don’t accept simple statements of Scripture? Again, sounds like a dig from a former hyperpreterist, which is most of what I hear these days, digs. I appreciate you taking the time to do the exegesis, and it is indeed helpful. But simple authoritative statements? Thats what made me believe Jesus’s Parousia was in the first century, b/c of simple statements of my authority, Scripture. Now believe me, before I was preteristic in ANY INTERPRETATION, I struggled with time statements, the resurrection, and the kingdom of God, I was helplessly confused when I read the bible. I had no desire and still really have no desire to be a hyperpreterist outcast. I’ll admit Scripture PLAINLY tells me that Jesus will come back bodily at times, it also tells me PLAINLY that He was to come back in the first century. So which one is it? I struggle with these issues even today. I am not 100 percent confused of preterism, probably around 80, but without it I just can’t make heads or tails of the bible and eschatology. In regards to what will it take me Phil to say Jesus didn’t return in 66-70AD:
    A solution that can deal with the time statements and the bodily nature of Christ’s Parousia.
    A better explanation of the resurrection (Phil 3, Romans 8, 1 Cor. 15) and why Paul always talks about the redemption of our “body,” not “bodies.”
    And what exactly the Kingdom of God is. Is it the church or not. Thanks,
    Chris

  38. FPs
    It seems my question is not understood. I am not asking about Bible authority vs creedal authority. I am asking whether you believe the apostles were able to teach clearly the nature of the resurrection, 2nd coming etc. We know that those who live through 70 AD still looked for the coming of the Lord. The question is why we should believe that no one ever understood what the apostles taught or why we should believe that the truth vanished immediately after the consummation.

    I find myself having to choose between those who lived in the first century and those who lived 2000 years later. Am I to believe that those who walked with John and the apostles failed to comprehend the eschatology which John and the apostles taught, while those 2000 years after have been able to figure it out?

    Again the question is not about what has the most authority but why I should accept an interpretation that shows up 2000 years.

    My take is that if a hermeneutic is applied and takes us to a conclusion that is opposed to what has always been understood, that hermeneutic should be questioned rather than applauded.

    Only when this hurdle has been crossed can I take full preterism as a viable eschatological option.

  39. Dorothy,

    A few weeks after becoming a “calvinist”, my wife gave birth to our first born and he died in my arms. “Friends” that i had known and hung out with for 5 years; christians that i did everything with; never bothered to call, visit, anything. Why? Because in their eyes, i was a “heretic” for embracing predestination. One guy said i deserved it.

    A week or so after i announced my preterism at a postmill, reformed baptist church (a group i served as unpaid staff; hung out with constantly; taught their kids, etc), i was at a church gym playing b-ball (Briarwood – home of the PCA) and sprinted full speed into a glass door…my left knee hitting first, completely slicing it open. Within cms of losing my knee altogether. Maintenance people from the other side of this huge church ran over, thinking someone had fired a gun…it was that loud. ONE person in that church visited me. (outside of family) And after that one person suggested to the church the idea of helping my family out financially because of loss of work, it was voted down. Why? Because i was a “heretic”.

    Do you see me creating a “calvinist blog” or “preterist blog” posting all of these actions by these people as a critique of arminianism and postmillennialism?

    No. That would be absurd. Should i start up a hate-blog against DeeDee (a molinist) because of how i was treated by these people? No.

    Yet, that is all i have seen of Roderick, Dee, and others. Taking something stupid that some preterist did and lumping us all in, as if that were some condemnation of preterist doctrine. And i don’t appreciate anyone trying to justify it just because they may have shown an act of kindness elsewhere. I don’t doubt my old pastor is kind to some people, he obviously has to be to keep a 300 member church. But he sure as heck didn’t give a rip about me once i became a calvinist. In fact, they prayed in one of their services that God snuff me out if need be, to keep his flock away from damnable heresy.

    (hey Brian S, how about adding that to your hate blog – calvinism leads to child death; since you like to point out the tragedies in preterist’s lives – http://antipreterist.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/william-bell/)

    I’m sorry for what you have gone through – but what in the world does that have to do with “HP”? Why even bring that up? If you’re sore with Sam, why not call him or email him?

    Look at Dee’s site. Every little thing that someone does is pointed out and the whole “HP” community is blasted for it. HPs i don’t even know.

    It is simply uncalled for. It is irrational, it is disgusting.

    I would recommend you, Rod, and others to read this excellent article by Vincent Cheung on Slander and Ministry:

    http://www.vincentcheung.com/2008/12/31/slander-and-ministry/

  40. Hi Chris,

    When I say “simple authoritative statements,” I mean the whole word of God, not just the timing statements. The timing statements are very important, but the governing context is also important. I believe “soon” means “soon,” and “Near at hand” means “near at hand.” However, I also believe “resurrection of the body” really means “resurrection of the body.” Why not take the whole word of God in its plain historical/grammatical/textual sense instead of just a few timing statements. Preterists have not thought of this option!

    The problem with Preterists is that they take the time-statements in a psedo-literal sense, but they change those events to something difrrent from what the inspired text indicates. This is not a solution, but an evasion.

    It’s ok to say that there was an “imminent” first-century parrousia. But certain things were to HAPPEN in the first century, and we have to take the whole counsel of God into consideration. Otherwise we are being inconsistent. I am insisting that the whole Word of God be dealt with according to uniform hermeneutical principles.

    The only problem with my view is that Preterists will claim that it leads to atheism. This is why Bertrand Russell couldn’t accept Christianity: because THE THINGS THAT JESUS CHRIST SAID WOULD HAPPEn soon DIDN’T HAPPEN. Preterists try to “solve” this problem by pulling a smoke-and-mirror show with the Word of God. They merely assert that something happened, when everybody knows it didn’t. But if it didn’t, why not?? The answer is to be found in the inspired text!

    At this point I believe there are only two options for one who studies the word of God according to consistent Protestant hermeneutics. He must either accept atheism or Dispensationalism.

    Brian

    P.S. ~ I believe that the “Kingdom of God” is the entire sphere of God’s moral government. I do not equate the kingdom with the church.

  41. Dorothy,

    I honestly do not have any recollection of that event, or being asked to visit your daughter. I am sorry to YOU for any oversight on my part. Deeply.

    I also accept your apology on the status of why we decided to disband. I apologize to YOU, not Roderick, for assuming that your source was him. However, Roderick has written things about us disbanding, and it has been disparaging. So, I will not apologize to him for anything.

    This is personal stuff, yes. But, forgiveness in public arenas is always important. Sorry, Phil, for this, but in the end, it is the strength of Chrsitianity ot set aside things and move on. We have been laboring for years for folks to set aside personal things, ad hom attacks, etc. and get to the meat of Scripture. but, when our opponents constantly bring up personal things and meddle in our personal lives (like with the seminary), one can only take so much.

    sorry for any grief these exchanges may have caused, and again, Dorothy, sorry for not remembering you in 2005.

    Sam

  42. That’s right Dorothy, now according to hyperpreterists you left the “movement” because Sam wasn’t nice enough to you. Just like according to these SAME hyperpreterists I left the movement because I wanted attention (although I wiped my site clean of 3 years worth of material just to make sure I got rid of all the hyperpreterist material & all the “attention” went away with it — hmm). And Todd Dennis??? Well according to these SAME hyperpreterists, Todd left the “movement” because, to be frank his wife left him (Don’t worry Phil this is public, Todd has even addressed it here, so I’m not saying anything he wouldn’t want me to). Yes, that’s right, according to these SAME hyperpreterists Todd is blaming his wife’s leaving on hyperpreterism. Lastly, Brian Simmons — they haven’t told us why he left yet but give them some time & they will tell us you can be sure. Because you see, no one can leave the hyperpreterist movement because the figure out it is ACTUALLY WRONG. Supposedly only people who are “illogical”, or “hateful”, or “mentally ill”, or “hurt” leave the wonderful hyperpreterist movement.

    Look, I’m just sooooo sick of these guys little games. I used to think it was just Virgil with all of his postmodernists mumbo-jumbo but I’ve noticed that they ALL do it whenever their movement/paradigm is critiqued. They all whine & complain that you aren’t being “loving” or “accepting” if we don’t coddle them & treat their heresy as if it is valid among Christianity. They claim rather, that it is WE who are “arrogant” even though hyperpreterism MUST begin with arrogance — after all, they think 2000 years worth of Christians were too dumb to get what they now supposedly get. They also think that God Himself who came in the form of Jesus just couldn’t figure out how to make us dense humans understand the most basic concepts of His message. Jesus even hand-picked apostles & gave them the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth so that they could pass on/teach the Church but the plan STILL failed because I guess neither Jesus nor the inspired apostles could relate the message in a way we could understand….well that is until the hyperpreterists came along with this new version of “Sola Scriptura” which is different than even what the Reformers advocated. (More arrogance)

    And don’t let the hyperpreterists try to point to places in the O.T. where people didn’t get it — that was type & shadow, that was the inferior “covenant”. Jesus came to REVEAL & to bring a “better covenant” — so to say it was a no better situation for the Christians than for the dense Jews is just more disrespectfulness of God on the part of hyperpreterism.

    As for the website Dee Dee maintains, it is NOT a “hate” site. Just imagine if someone was there to chronicle the founding of the Mormons or the JWs & to give us a play-by-play picture of what went on. Well, that is what PreteristBlog is doing. People will be able to know not just about hyperpreterist “theology” but how it developed day-by-day. How the hyperpreterist movement in the 1990s went through a period of universalistic concepts & who was & wasn’t advocating it & who was & wasn’t saying anything about. People will be able to see when the pseudo-conservative hyperpreterists left their liberal Romanian benefactor who gave most of them their start & instead branched out to their own corner of the web where now thy even ban their former mentor. People will be able to know the hyperpreterist movement inside & out, not just how the hyperpreterists spin it.

    I expect in the coming months & years, more people will leave the movement & if they are vocal, they too will magically be transformed in the hyperpreterists eyes as “hateful, bitter hurt, mentally ill” people that should just shut up & go away.

  43. Jefrey,
    My theory is that the gospel went West and forgot its Eatern/Hebrew roots, something none of us nor any Westerner can really understand completely. I think there is plenty of church evidence showing that the early church became very anti-jewish very quick. And if I’m not mistaken, virtually no early church fathers if any at all were Hebrew. Now, I can hypothesize that the Jewish Christians saw indeed how powerful Christ was and that they were the true sons of God and had realized all their promises. I can also hypothesize as to how the new up and comers (gentiles), after all the apostles had died except John, had a lot of authority and might have gotten carried away with their fantastacism (rapture, end of time, etc…). And since they were the ones who spread the early church post AD 70 towards the west, the church absorbed those fantastical beliefs that don’t really match up with anything in the old testament. Again, thats my hypothesis of a plausible historiography (in my opinion). Lastly, history PROVES nothing, but your statement about the apostles not being able to clearly communicate is a good and valid argument, but it ends in speculation just like mine does… Serving Christ in any form of kingdom He wants,
    Chris Winn

  44. “Yes, that’s right, according to these SAME hyperpreterists Todd is blaming his wife’s leaving on hyperpreterism.”

    I never said that. Show me one place where i said that. You’re lying.

    I got word from some other non-pret friends that Rod is on alert at another site for following me around to spread lies and slander. How many non-pret sites have to censor this guy for folks to wake up?

    Stay away from him.

    Phil, i apologize as well, but this is what Rod does everywhere he goes. I never learn, i guess. ( : I’ll make a stronger effort of not responding to him.

  45. HaHa, Jason claims I’m lying by saying HYPERPRETERISTS (not necessarily Jason personally) have said Todd left hyperpreterism due to marriage issues (source#1, source#2) YET, then Jason tells us about some hearsay about me being on some sort of alert. That’s news to me. But even if it were true, it wouldn’t be the first time Christians have mistakenly thought that EXPOSING hyperpreterism (Eph 5:11) was “mean” & have tried to silence any criticism of hyperpreterism.

    If Judaizers were going around telling the Church it must be circumcised, we most certainly should oppose it — even to the point of going where such things are being said/taught, so with hyperpreterists trying to dupe yet more Christians into their little personal cult — yes! by all means, let’s oppose the spread of that false doctrine. Let the hyperpreterists continue to whine & try to shut up all criticism. Their falsity will not stand.

  46. “Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracles it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers
    and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. Lastly, they say there is little need of argument, for its quality may be known by its fruits, namely, the large number of sects, the many seditious disturbances, and the great licentiousness which it has produced.
    No doubt, it is a very easy matter for them, in presence of an ignorant and credulous multitude, to insult over an undefended cause; but were an opportunity of mutual discussion afforded, that acrimony which they now our out upon us in frothy torrents, with as much license as impunity, would assuredly boil dry.

    “While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt, so that it may be truly said their only care has been to
    gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest glamour, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages. Still, in studying their writings, we have endeavored to remember, (1
    Corinthians 3:21-23; see also Augustin. Ep. 28,) that all things are ours, to serve, not Lord it over us, but that we are Christ’s only, and must obey him in all things without exception. He who does not draw this distinction will not have any fixed principles in religion: for those holy men were
    ignorant of many things, are often opposed to each other, and are
    sometimes at variance with themselves.” (John Calvin against Rome and their tactics and devises)

    Notice any similarity?

    Samuel Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  47. Jefrey,

    My e-mail is samuelmfrost@yahoo.com To answer your great question concerning the apostles teachings past A.D. 70 I will send you my book, Misplaced Hope for free. I don’t do that often. It’s a technical read in that it documents the Apostolic Fathers…It has sold several thousand copies. Just e-mail me, and its yours. I think it will fully and entirely answer your question, with footnotes from Reformed sources to boot!

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.

  48. Roderick,
    I have no idea who you are. I’d never heard of you till I listened to some RCM audio stuff. I had checked out preteristblog.com before I ever even investigated hyperpreterism, and to say the least, I thought it was very unchristian and often times petulant. I disregarded that site in my orthodox preteristic research long ago b/c it was exactly what you said it isn’t, a hate site. And no, Christians shouldn’t be running websites that chronicle everything a mormon site does and bash it into oblivion based on personal issues and sarcasm like preteristblog does. I’ve considered renouncing my beliefs in hyperpreterism (and thats what they are, beliefs. Just cause you think you were a player in a movement doesn’t mean the majority of hyperpreterists view it that way) couple times, and I knew I would never bad mouth Sam, Jason, or any of the people I’ve interacted with online cause they’ve all acted like followers of Christ. I would also take no part in an anti-hyperpreterist site like you (which is fine if done in a godly manner). Like I said, I’ve never met you, I don’t know anything about you, but the things I’ve heard from your mouth on past RCM stuff and on preteristblog, and here…you need to get right with the Lord brother. So much anger and bitterness is all that I can see. Now its a computer so maybe I’m misreading which is entirely possible. and if that is the case, take it as a suggestion from a brother in Christ then, to take some more time preparing before you write so it doesn’t sound so angry, acerbic, and down and out nasty. i would want someone to point that out to me if I was being read that way. And if you want to get rid of hyperpreterism, continue to refute the doctrines, not the people. I don’t need to knock on Joel Osteen, Ken Copeland, or Crefalo Dollar, I speak out against their doctrines and I let the Lord do the work (isn’t that the reformed mentality? God’s truth does the work anyway?) God bless
    Chris Winn

  49. Ok Chris, once again…. look who is being “personal”??? The hyperpreterists have REALLY attacked people. They have said Todd lost his wife due to your mere “beliefs” & that he blames hyperpreterism & that is the reason he left it. They here claim by implication that Dorothy left because Sam wasn’t nice enough to her. They compare Dee Dee to a whore. They claim I need medication & they have even threatened to physically harm me…more than once.

    No Chris, you don’t seem to get it — perhaps due to your daily influence by those SAME hyperpreterists. We keep repeating the SAME question Jefrey has:

    HOW DO HYPERPRETERISTS RECONCILE THAT WHAT THEY TEACH MUST DEMAND A 2000 YEAR LONG CONSPIRACY WHERE THE CHURCH SUPPOSEDLY GROSSLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT JESUS & THE APOSTLES WERE TEACHING ABOUT? (1) Jesus’ return (2) The resurrection of the believers (3) The judgment of the wicked & righteous.

    We are asking the very first question about hyperpreterism — its over-arching premise that MUST be dealt with FIRST & instead the hyperpreterists keep dodging & deflecting & sending out red-herrings (& talking about people instead of the issue). Instead, they want to pull people aside privately & tell them stuff — they tried this with Phil & now they want to try it with Jefrey by sending him a book (which they had to tell us how generous it was of them since they “don’t do it often”). Why can’t they answer it in the open??? I already pointed out one answer given by some hyperpreterists where they tried to claim there was a first-century rapture that took all the people who would have supposedly known about an AD70 return of Christ & other attending events. What is Sam’s book going to tell Jefrey that can’t be said in a few lines? Why does it take a entire book?

    Con-men always to try to get people off to the side & pitch their cons. They can’t let too many people see what they are doing out in the open….especially the people who know how they operate…so instead they do all they can to shut those people up. Just as they have tried to do with Todd, with Dorothy, with me, with Dee Dee & others who oppose their DOCTRINE.

    As for being “bitter” & “hateful” or “angry”. I think you confuse passion & zeal with those negative things. Do you think Paul was “bitter/hateful/angry” when he spoke about the Judaizers & said:

    I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off! (Gal 5:10-12)

    No, rather I think it is part of the hyperpreterist effort to shut up their REAL critics by trying to paint them as bitter/hateful/angry (or even insane “boobs”) in hopes people will “not listen to them” as Jason & Sam keep wanting people to do.

    I wish the same thing Paul wished, that those who trouble the Church with this heresy would even cut themselves off. But if as you say some are ready to renounce the lie of hyperpreterism — Praise God! Now, is that bitter/hateful/angry???

  50. Roderick,
    Like I said, if I mistook your passion and zeal I apologize, thats the problem with internet these days unfortunately. In regards to your comment about Paul, valid point, but I would just warn all Christians to be careful in assuming we have the same authority as Paul or any apostle, that got their mandate from Christ and God DIRECTLY.
    Brian,
    Thanks for your other response, although I don’t like your comment about how hyperpreterists violate context in every timing issue. Second, I’ve studied the bible a lot, grew up in a dispensational church (although I’m no scholar, just a poor carpenter:), but for me, dispensationalism is no where to be found. To say the two choices are atheism and dispensationalism is quite inaccurate and presumptuous in my opinion. While premillenialism is historic, dispensationalism surely is not, it also results in HUGE contradictions in the inspired text of the New Testament as does postmillenialism. If I ever renounce hyperpreterism I will be a panmillenialist that just stands on history, cause for me, none of their other current “systems,” make any sense wholistically at all.
    Phil,
    Sorry for adding fuel to the “off-topic fire” 🙂 Glad you posted this and that you’re posting on SGP. Hopefully you did read my response to your questions in one of my earlier posts. Like I said, those theological issues have always plagued my intellect. And lastly, if I ever renounce HP, I will probably simply read the bible like most other modern christians, glazing over it to get the moral duty of the day. It is deep study and pondering that led me to HP, there is no intellectually satisfying explanation FOR ME, other than HP in regards to eschatology. Right now its either that, or I seriously reconsider the importance of bible study at all. Which as of right now, I’m not ready to do or to teach people.

    And lastly, maybe some practical thoughts to change the topic a little:

    1)If I have relationship with Christ now, anytime I want, why do I want him to come back bodily and sit in Jerusalem. I mean, with all the Christians and saved Israelites that have ever lived, how long will it be in the millenium till I get to say whats up do MY king? First 100 years, 200?
    2)If I”m going to heaven when I die, which is where God is and always has been, and God is in spirit form, and God is perfect, and I will be in spirit form with Him, why is a new body “my hope?”
    3)Isn’t the point of the work of Christ so God can look on His people and see Himself, His Son? To glorify Himself? Why would He ever change that and make us into perfect robots? He can do that anytime He wants.
    4) Are all the Christians who ever to lived, and the saved nation of Israel, even going to fit in Jerusalem when Christ “reigns” from there (as if He’s not reigning now dispensationalists). Or how bout this, are all the people who HAVE EVER LIVED even going to fit in the globe itself?

    Now I know God can do anything He wants, but I think these practical questions should be considered since we are so consumed with physicality. In Christ,
    Chris Winn

  51. If folks are truly interested in how preterists deal with history, they can visit thereignofchrist.com, where articles have been written on sola Scriptura, podcasts have been recorded, and so forth. Also, Sam wrote an entire book on the topic, Misplaced Hope.

    The reason Rod lies about us not answering this question – one we have answered a million times – is because he’s looking for an answer that he thinks we should be forced in giving, but as we have explained a dozen times, are not forced in giving.

    Notice how he phrases the question: “HOW DO HYPERPRETERISTS RECONCILE THAT WHAT THEY TEACH MUST DEMAND A 2000 YEAR LONG CONSPIRACY”

    Conspiracy?
    —-

    Notice too how Rod flips things. In a post addressed to me, he repeatedly uses the word, “SAME”, even capitalizing it. These “SAME” preterists do this and do that…

    When i pointed out that “I” never said such a thing about Todd, he then says, “HaHa, Jason claims I’m lying by saying HYPERPRETERISTS (not necessarily Jason personally) have said Todd left hyperpreterism due to marriage issues”

    I didn’t say that no preterists have said such things about Todd, nor would i. How in the world can i keep track of what every preterist is saying? I said that “I” have never said such things.

    Rod completely flipped what my original complaint was.

    And now he is back to “they” again.

    This has been Rod’s tactic for as long as i have known him. Rod does not want us on this site period, so he will say anything he has to…he will flip anything he has to…to put us ALL in bad light.

    He is very deceptive.

    Lastly, it is not “hearsay” that he is on alert on another site. I was contacted by one of the admins telling me that he is on watch because they are completely aware of Rod’s tactics. They don’t approve.

    Rod can call it “ignoring”, “censoring” or whatever he wants, but i’m not going to fall for his deceptive, loaded questions and tricks.

  52. Does any preterist on this blog have a problem including Revelation 20 into Revelation 22, with regard to the fulfillment of all things? The initiation of events in Revelation 20 would appear to be ongoing, yet fulfilled according to the prophecy “the time is at hand”. I believe we do well to adhere to the command Rev. 22:18-19 (KJV)
    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

    Sola Scriptura

  53. How about the answers to this “practical question” we keep asking?

    1. Why is hyperpreterism’s claims in contradiction to 2000 years worth of Christianity?

    We have seen some hyperpreterist answers as follows:

    SOME HYPERPRETERIST ANSWERS

    1. 2000 years of Christians were too dumb to understand what Jesus & His hand-picked, Holy Spirit guided, inspired apostles were trying to teach them (this is the most common hyperpreterist answer, yet they try to make it sound less conspiratorial) Pin on to this, the so-called “progressive understanding/knowledge” answer where hyperpreterists try to tell us people are just now beginning to put together “seeds”/pieces of hyperpreterism — it still amounts to 2000 years of Christianity too dumb to even get the basics correct.

    2. There has been a 2000 year cover-up/conspiracy where the big-bad “leaders” of “traditional” Christianity (so-called old magisterium) have hidden the hyperpreterist view from the world all this time. Tin-foil hats anyone??? (2nd most given answer).

    3. There was a first-century rapture where all the so-called true Christians were removed from the planet, leaving behind only the so-called “second-rank” Christians to teach & guide the fledgling Church & obviously the second-ranks didn’t know what supposedly happened in AD70. Again, it amounts to a very, very messed up Christianity where God supposedly failed to make sure His Church understood what was going on.

    All of these answers or forms of these answers show great disrespect for the teaching abilities of God/Jesus, of the Holy Spirit & of the inspired apostles. It is not enough to say, “Well, it’s not God’s fault if people didn’t get it” — ummm NO ONE GOT IT according to hyperpreterists. 2000 years of Christianity would then be based on a complete dunce of a foundation. That would be a pretty bad effort at teaching/revealing the mystery as was supposed to be the case with Jesus’ ministry in the N.T. If the people under the “new covenant” are as clueless as those people under the shadow/type “old covenant”, then why do we call it a “better covenant”???

    Yes indeed, let’s talk about the PRACTICAL QUESTIONS before we go off on some rabbit trail proof-texting match or reading some book that has “sold several thousand copies” by some guy who is rejected by almost every legitimate theologian.

    For example, in a discussion with a Mormon, I first discuss the premise/paradigm of Joseph Smith jr. claiming he is a new prophet. I don’t discuss Scripture with people who have as an over-arching premise/paradigm something that ignores the over-arching premise/paradigm of 2000 years worth of historic Christianity.

    Lastly, when hyperpreterists claim we are putting the creeds before Scripture, this is not so, BUT we are considering the over-arching premise of 2000 years of historic Christianity, which is a stronger & louder testimony than ANY creed, council, or confession. It is that UNITED testimony against which hyperpreterism makes its outrageous claims. It certainly is a louder testimony than some individual who picks up an English Bible & thinks he has figured out something 2000 years worth of Christian couldn’t.

  54. Chris,

    I can understand that the gospel lost its Eastern roots and became anti-jewish very quick, however I need a stronger explanation. There would be a process of losing truth and picking up error. When we put those who walked side by side with the apostles and especially the fact that John survived past 70AD and we say 70AD was the eargerly awaited hope of the Church, we have to wonder how long it would take for this truth to completely vanish and an error be accepted universally.

    It wouldn’t be too much for me to believe if the Church first believed that the resurrection was spiritual and then 1700 years later you find them believing there would be a physical resurrection but I find it a bit hard to accept that the Church universally exchanged its hope for a “covenantal change” for a “physical resurrection” with no trace of controversy (to my knowledge) in less than 100years. I need a good explanation for this one. To simply theorize that “the new up and comers (gentiles), after all the apostles had died except John, had a lot of authority and might have gotten carried away with their fantastacism (rapture, end of time, etc…). ” does not explain where the truth went, instead it questions the ability of the apostles to communicate the message. This radical break in theology is the point that should be answered, how did it happen. An answer which just calls for the utter failure to communicate truth doesnt really do it for me.
    So your hypothesis can explain how the doctrine spread but it seems to come short of how the truth vanished without trace. Such a hypothesis seems to fit gradual change not the break which FP would suggest. That’s my opnion anyway.

    It is somewhat not true that “history PROVES nothing”. Are you saying that even if documents were to be found which emphatically describe the doctrine of the church pre AD70 and the teachings of those who walked with the apostles soon after AD70 you will just ignore them? Maybe you can have such confidence in how you understand Scripture but I hear that the historical context is key in coming to the correct understanding of Scripture.

  55. Albert,

    I waited almost 8 years for a sound response to Rev 20. I never saw one that fit. That’s one place where they are very inconsistant with time. If John wanted to convey nearness he could have chosen another word. 1000 years implies a long time…yet you will find the HP’s make that fit within 40 years using 2Pet 3:8 as their proof text. They do not allow us to use the the thousand years in a reverse application although using it, we could say it has only been two days since Jesus was resurrected.

    Unfortunately for them, Rev speaks of the judicial sentence of stoning from the Mosaic law on the adulterous wife – Judah, not Israel. Israel was divorced by God – Jer 3:8. Her capital was NOT Jerusalem. It was in Samaria but she was no longer there. I have confirmed that from the second temple restoration, Israel was not included. She had been scattered among the Assyrians and had not returned. So Rev 18:7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ – can not be speaking of the branch of Israel. Only Judah could attempt to claim widow status.

    Act 1:6-7 address this: Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

    BUT according to the HP’s we can and do know the times and seasons….and that Jesus knew them also and gave them all the details. I guess Peter didn’t get it.

    It is also noteworthy that HP’s link Matt 24 to Luke 21 and Mark 13, but Luke 21 and Mark 13 were discussions that took place at the temple. Matt 24, took place on the mount of olives. Two different discourses at two different locations. imho – That is why you see discussion in Matt 24 that you don’t find in Luke 21 and Mark 13.

    Also, pay attention to Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    The captives from Jerusalem were led away “after” the destruction of Jerusalem, yet imho this text implies that the time of the Gentiles takes place after that event…..

    According to HP – the time of the Gentiles was from the gospel going out to them until the conquering of Jerusalem by the Romans…..but I don’t read the text that way…maybe it’s just me.

    This is just a very short list of issues I have that HP has not been able to resolve to my satisfaction.

  56. “I had checked out preteristblog.com before I ever even investigated hyperpreterism, and to say the least, I thought it was very unchristian and often times petulant. I disregarded that site in my orthodox preteristic research long ago b/c it was exactly what you said it isn’t, a hate site.”

    Chris, I thought the same thing about preteristblog after the first time I visited it. A lot of the commentary there is just too personal and unChristian in tone and speech. I even noticed one of the bloggers there seems to have an obsession with calling others she disagrees with “retards.” How very loving and Christ-like…not.

    One can certainly disagree (strongly) with an individual or a set of beliefs and yet do so with Christian humility and love. Mr. Naessens has certainly proven that this is more than possible, if you’re heart is in the right place.

    Joel

  57. “if you’re heart is in the right place.”

    Oops. That should read “your” not “you’re.” Sorry, it’s been a long night. 😉

  58. Jefrey,

    I sent you the book. I would say, yes, even if history found documents that show Preterism as fully true, I STILL would not use that as a basis, any basis, for “proving” the doctrine. Roderick has offered three pat answers, none of which we accept. He has never read, to my knowledge, Misplaced Hope, which even our critic Dr. Charles Hill ascknowledged as “lengthy” and detailed. Anyway, you have the book. (oh, and I never threatened Roderick’s life. What he means by that is that a person sent an E-mail after he acussed this person of having an affair threatening him. Nothing came of it, but roderick got full play from it…the guy that allegedly sent this e-mail is “out there” so to speak and we do not fratenize with him)…just to let folks know the facts…Roderick likes to use the word “they” instead of “one guy” or “this guy”…he wants to lump the WHOLE in with what one guy did. It’s frustrating.

    As for the Millennium question, we place it between the First and Second Advents of Jesus, harmonizing the exegesis of Premillennial, A-millennial and Post millennial thoughts. The article on this harmonization is on our website (www.thereignofchrist.com). It utilizes the great commentary by William Hendriksen (More Than Conquerors) and the exegesis of Kenneth L. Gentry (He Shall Have Dominion) by splicing them together….the fusion results in full Preterism. Check it out.

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.

  59. Hi Joel,

    I use terms like “knucklehead” and “idiot” when describing certain individuals from the WoF Movement. I haven’t used those terms in this discussion because they don’t fit the individuals I have encountered even though I STRONGLY disagree with them. So I’m not any better or worse then whomever you are talking about.

    Just wanted to clear that up.

    Phil

  60. Hi Phil,
    I would like to try and address some of Dorothy’s questions.

    Dorothy> *”I waited almost 8 years for a sound response to Rev 20″.

    Bill>Well Dorothy it’s been 2,000 yrs and this is the note in the ESV version of the Bible
    ” The Thousand Years of the Dragon’s Binding and the Martyrs’ Reign. These verses are among the most controversial in Revelation. Responsible scholars disagree regarding the meaning of the “thousand years”

    So trying to pretend that this is an issue for preterist is lost on me.

    Dorothy> *I never saw one that fit. That’s one place where they are very inconsistant with time. If John wanted to convey nearness he could have chosen another word. 1000 years implies a long time…

    Bill>You do know that 1,000 is used in other places in the Bible where it doesn’t necessary mean a long time or even a literal 1,000 ?
    Please see “The Book of Revelation” By Gregory K. Beale A very well respected futurist.Start on page 1017.

    “The primary point of 1,000 years is probably not a figurative reference to a long time but the thematic ideal of the ultimate victory of Christians who have suffered”.

    Deut 32:30 How could one have chased a thousand, and two have put ten thousand to flight,unless their Rock had sold them,and the Lord had given them up?

    Josh 23:10 One man of you puts to flight a thousand, since it is the Lord your God who fights for you, just as he promised you
    Job 1:3 If one wished to contend with him,one could not answer him once in a thousand times.

    Job 33:23 If there be for him an angel,a mediator, one of the thousand,to declare to man what is right for him,

    Ps 68:17 The chariots of God are twice ten thousand, thousands upon thousands;the Lord is among them; Sinai is now in the sanctuary.

    Isa 7:23 In that day every place where there used to be a thousand vines, worth a thousand shekels of silver, will become briers and thorns.
    I think this makes my point.

    Dorothy>>*yet you will find the HP’s make that fit within 40 years using 2Pet 3:8 as their proof text. They do not allow us to use the the thousand years in a reverse application although using it, we could say it has only been two days since Jesus was resurrected.

    Bill>>Your losing me again here Dorothy.You mean Christ would still be in the ground 3 days=3,000 yrs.He wouldn’t even be out yet!

    Dorothy>>*Unfortunately for them, Rev speaks of the judicial sentence of stoning from the Mosaic law on the adulterous wife – Judah, not Israel.Israel was divorced by God – Jer 3:8. Her capital was NOT Jerusalem. It was in Samaria but she was no longer there. I have confirmed that from the second temple restoration, Israel was not included.

    Bill>>Post-Captivity Terminology

    After the Babylonian captivity, the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” are used interchangeably. Ezra calls the returning remnant “Jews” 8 times and “Israel” 40 times. (Ezra also speaks of “all Israel”: Ezra 2:70; 3:11; 8:35; 10:25, et al.) Nehemiah uses the term “Jew” 11 times and “Israel” 22 times. Nehemiah too speaks of “all Israel” being back in the land (Nehemiah 12:47). The remnant who returned from Babylon is represented as “the nation” (Malachi 1:1, et al.).

    The same is true in the New Testament. Our Lord is said to have offered Himself to the nation, “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6; 15:24). Tribes other than Judah are mentioned specifically in the New Testament as being represented in the land.15

    Anna knew her tribal identity was of the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Paul knew he was of the tribe of Benjamin, a “Jew” and an “Israelite” (Romans 11:1). The New Testament speaks of “Israel” 75 times and uses the word “Jew” 174 times.16

    At the Feast of Pentecost Peter cries, “Ye men of Judea” (Acts 2:14), “ye men of Israel…” (Acts 2:22), and “All the house of Israel” (Acts 2:36).

    *Act 1:6-7 address this: Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.

    Dorothy>>*BUT according to the HP’s we can and do know the times and seasons….and that Jesus knew them also and gave them all the details. I guess Peter didn’t get it.

    Bill>>I mean no disrespect but what you just wrote makes no sense whatsoever.
    Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place

    Doroty>>*It is also noteworthy that HP’s link Matt 24 to Luke 21 and Mark 13, but Luke 21 and Mark 13 were discussions that took place at the temple. Matt 24, took place on the mount of olives. Two different discourses at two different locations. imho – That is why you see discussion in Matt 24 that you don’t find in Luke 21 and Mark 13.

    Bill>>First off,this is not something only preterist do linking Matt. Mark and Luke as the same event.I’m at a lose again to understand your reasoning here as the different gospels give different accounts of the Virgin Birth,The Crucifixion and many other events .Yet they are all the same events just told by different writers.

    Dorothy>>*Also, pay attention to Luke 21:24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    The captives from Jerusalem were led away “after” the destruction of Jerusalem, yet imho this text implies that the time of the Gentiles takes place after that event…..

    According to HP – the time of the Gentiles was from the gospel going out to them until the conquering of Jerusalem by the Romans…..but I don’t read the text that way…maybe it’s just me.

    This is just a very short list of issues I have that HP has not been able to resolve to my satisfaction.

    Bill>>Again Dorothy i don’t see a problem here.Not knowing your eschatology i’m at a lose to know what you mean.Do you still consider Luke 21 future??

    Luke 21 :20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

    Please remember that there are no Chapters or verse #’s in the original manuscripts.

    Did they see theses events..I say yes.The temple is gone.Now unless you believe it will be rebuilt.?

    Respectfully
    Bill

  61. “we have to wonder how long it would take for this truth to completely vanish ”

    Jefrey, how do you know it completely vanished? There is not a person alive today who can faithfully reconstruct history.

    The bottom line is: you don’t know…i don’t know. To argue history as “proof” in either direction is filled with logical problems.

    If they dug up a letter, supposedly linking it to John and ad71, and it was a preterist tract, it would not make a hill of beans difference to me.

    History is not the starting point; Scripture is.

  62. Jefrey,
    Thanks for your response brother. I don’t expect it to intellectually satisfy everyone, but it is my best hypothesis right now. I disagree and I still say that history can PROVE nothing, because nothing can give absolute truth except God’s Word. I happen to think if all the original apostles did die off in a fairly short span, it could have led to an accelerated redefining of doctrine. Perhaps the apostasy Jesus and Paul predict before the end could have something to do with it? Maybe, maybe not, just a thought.
    Roderick,
    I gave a hypothesis trying to answer your PRACTICAL question about church history and teaching, you did not address any of mine. I’m not saying you have to, obviously you are under no obligation, but I did try to answer yours the best I could.
    Dorothy, Mark 13 happens on Olivet across from the temple, not at the temple, I’m afraid you are mistaken. Matthew 24 as you noted also mentions Jesus going to Olivet after He’s in the temple. Just b/c Luke does not mention Jesus going to Olivet (which He goes to immediately after the temple in both Matthew and Mark) does not mean it didn’t happen. Thats why God gave us four gospels, to give us the COMPLETE STORY of what He wanted to show us. The events and subject matter and timing of the discourse are all exactly the same, with a gentile perspective obviously, and it happens right after his temple discourse just like as in the two other synoptic gospels.

    Lastly, and this indeed will be my last post:
    I believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. I believe He came to earth as fully God and fully man to proclaim His good news and to reconcile His people to the Father. He paid for our sins on the cross by his broken body and shed blood, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. He then ascended on high to the right hand of Father and was given all authority in heaven and on earth. In terms of last things, I believe Christ prepared a people for the Father between 30-70AD and reintroduced that people to God the Father in intimate fellowship yet again. I believe that was the resurrection, and I believe it was spiritual. And even if I am wrong and physical bodies at the end is what is to happen, the end goal of that resurrection is man being in the presence of God again, the same as my view. I also believe God have us the inspired Old and New Testaments to communicate this to us. I have committed my life to this God and His Word and try to live my life with Christ as my head and authority, who I love deeply. If any of these views warrant me the title heretic, unsaved, damned, then so be it.
    In christ,
    Chris Winn

  63. Hi Bill,

    I’m just going to say this once. HP’s are the ones who claim ALL is done yet can’t even begin to define what “ALL” is. I’ve watched over the last few years while they have tried to cram everything into their theory and they can’t make it fit imho.

    You keep using the Church as your excuse for failure to reconcile these texts. The Church isn’t the one demanding everything is accomplished, you are, so the burden of proof resides in your position. I don’t have to debate anything with you. The failure of HP to provide answers to the questions is HP’s failure…not mine. Hmmmm some in HP claim the devil is the first century Judiazers…so where is the abyss? Got an answer for that one?

    I don’t mean to sound harsh here, but I suggest you go back and keep trying to figure out how to cram everything into AD70. It should keep you busy for another 30 years.

  64. Dorothy,
    Am i now to assume that the 1,000 yrs is no longer a problem for you? After all you have waited 8 years. I would like to nail this down before we go to the abyss.

    This seems to be the pattern with you anti preterist.You guys build your strawman arguments and then when confronted you just tuck tail and run for another one.

    And you didn’t seem harsh to me Dorothy,desperate and frustrated maybe.:) But i guess 2,000 yrs of false predictions does that to a person.

    Respectfully
    Bill

  65. Bill,

    1000 is not a problem for me….I view it as a long period of time.

    What is a problem is trying to carry on a scriptural conversation with an HP. I ran into the same thing years ago while trying to talk to universalists and I’ve run into it here with the WOF people. It’s like they have blinders on and can’t do anything but recite a mantra.

    Ya see Bill, the choice you will ultimately be faced with in HP is either universalism or the local flood theory which imho makes God a tribal God and removes all foundation as Him being the creator of the universe. I do plan on showing how the logical result of HP is one or the other. That’s the reason I choose not to engage in scripture with you now. You haven’t followed your position to it’s conclusion, so I plan on showing it to you.

    At some point, you will be faced with a decision. Become a universalist, a local flood theory proponent, or return to scripture to see where you got off on the wrong path.

    Why do you think the emergents are adopting the view and are still being solicited by and given a platform by those in HP? It fits perfectly with their inclusionist message.

  66. Hi Phil,

    The local flood theory is based on comments by Josephus where he states that there were others there outside when the Ark landed. They view Adam as the first covenant man, but not necessarily the “first” man and that the Bible was written for the “covenant” people. They hold that the flood was a local judgment on covenant breakers just as the destruction of Jerusalem was a local judgment on covenant breakers. They claim this must be true for scripture to be consistant.

    I consider it a backdoor to a universalist thought. They call it covenant context. If all was restored in AD70 and not ALL are restored, then it stands to reason that there is a select group that are covenant bearers and it had to be that way from the beginning. They don’t read Genesis 1-10 as history but more in an allegorical motiff. Their motivation seems to be based more on the issue that they see the world as much older than 6000 years and they do have a grip on universalist thought from the NT. Hosea 6:7 is a big support text for them: But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.

    Here is a link so you can read some of their book.

    http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/

    I just see it as another attempt to explain why everything was complete in AD70 so this option was placed on the table. They have served to bring more division within the HP camp. New Creation Ministries and Planet Preterist promote it while Sam & co have been battling it. All is not well within HP. Visit SGP and you will see where they have formulated a “group” to combat it. You will find it on their home page and titled “Concerning BCS”.

  67. Phil,

    The “local flood theory” is an Evangelical doctrine. Preterists did not invent it….it’s been around for centuries (it appears that Dorothy is thinking that Preterists had a hand in developing this doctrine). Universalism isn’t new, either…see the “early church father” Origen (fourth century) for that one.

    Also, “all is not well within HP” seems to think that, like any other movement in Christendom, there are no disagreements! Calvinism certainly has its fair share of rank disagreements…would one write, “all is not well within Calvinism”? How about “eschatology” and the dizzying, conflicting views it has produced within Church History….would one write, “all is not well within Christian History”? The fact that a movement has disagreements among it is a sign of maturity. There is no doctrine that does not have its fair share of disagreements from within. Welcome to thelogy!

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

  68. Secular historians have used “the local flood theory” as a device to discredit the bible. I was introduced to this while taking bible classes at a secular univerisity. They claim that flood stories predate the bible account of Noah and use the “Epic of Gilgamesh” as an example. Those who seek proof by scientific means (carbon dating and such) are no different from the signs and wonders crowd.

  69. The local flood theory is a device that is needed to bolster the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism. Because Preterists claim that 2 Peter 3 was accomplished in A.D. 70, they need to localize the flood account in order to make Peter’s analogy match up. But there’s nothing in the context of Peter’s language that implies localization. The idea is not coming from the Bible, but from the fevered heads of Hyper-Preterists.

    Brian

    Phil: Hi Brian. So if someone adheres to Full Preterism and doesn’t believe in a “local flood theory” how do they then reconcile 2 Peter 3?

  70. Hi Phil,

    Well, I think they’d probably ‘qualify’ Peter’s language by saying something like:

    “Jerusalem was the center of the world under the Old Covenant. Therefore, when Jerusalem was destroyed, it was as if the whole world was being shattered.”

    You see that fast trick? That just shows how weak their position is. In this case they assent to the universality of Peter’s description, because they know the context doesn’t imply localization. So they say that it “WAS” local, but that its significance made it “LIKE” a universal conflagration.

    But Peter didn’t say that a local event would be LIKE a universal destruction. He said that the coming destruction would be universal, just like Noah’s flood. So if a Hyper-Pret says the flood was universal, then he’s being inconsistent.

    People like Sam Frost and Tim Martin realize this, so they go back and make the flood local. That way their discrepancy is hidden. But when we turn the microscope onto the details and start looking at what Peter really WAS talking about, the Hyper-Preterist error becomes glaringly manifest.

    Brian

  71. I was going to respond in detail to the “local flood” issue, but it looks like Brian has handled it pretty well. If I could just point out a few things.

    1. The readers should be seeing a pattern here with hyperpreterism. Hyperpreterists tend to downplay their difference with historic Christianity — as if it is just minor. They want us to believe the differences are “non-essential” & don’t affect salvation issues, though soteriology & eschatology are intertwined, after all Jesus preached REPENT AND BELIEVE FOR THE KINGDOM IS AT HAND. This is the reason a HIGH RATIO of hyperpreterists have become universalistic. I mean, if the kingdom is not really at hand, what need is there to believe or repent? In fact, many hyperpreterist universalists argue just this way, quoting Rom 5:13 in the process.

    2. The readers should see that hyperpreterists often incriminate historic Christianity as if “it is flawed” so we can’t or have no right to disagree with hyperpreterism.

    First, of course there has been universalism & “local flood theory” within broader Christianity but we are talking about RATIO here. If we say 1 in a million Christians claim to be universalists or local flood advocates, that is different than saying 1 in 100 hyperpreterists are these things. Of course, some hyperpreterist will come here & call me a “boob” who thinks I am “omniscient” about how many hyperpret universalists & local flood theorists there are. So let’s quote something specific, by a hyperpreterist:

    Covenant Creation is spreading through the rank and files of the Preterist community. You are not necessarily privy to other forums where this is being discussed and understood. In a few years you and your site will become embraced only by the Ed Stevens and Kurt Simmons follower types of Preterism and maybe some reformed folks. The Covenant Creation understanding will move on into the mainstream leaving you guys in the dustbin of history as just another remnant of curiosity in about 5 or 10 years. Fifty years from now the questions being asked is “what happened to that Sam Frost guy who started out so good?” Will history simply say that he got “left behind”? (message to Sam Frost from a fellow hyperpreterist)

    The above quote is the sentiment of a quite a few people from the “Covenant Creation” faction of hyperpreterism.
    Now, let’s take a moment to also correct ANOTHER thing hyperpreterists are trying to downplay here on Phil’s blog — Hyperpreterism ISN’T just advocating a “local flood” theory — they are advocating “Covenantal Creation”. What this means is that they want us to believe the Genesis Creation account ISN’T about the creation of the physical universe or about the creation of the first human beings, but merely about a “covenantal” (eg symbolic) creation. According to Covenantal Creationists, it supposedly is about the creation of the “covenantal world”. Adam is supposedly not the first created human but just the first human in which God enter into covenant.

    So, once again we catch a hyperpreterist downplaying or outright hiding what is REALLY being taught. Wonder why???

    Here are some other resources on Covenantal Creationism:
    http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=939 (concise interaction)
    http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=1140 (contemporary issues)

    Hyperpreterists KNOW that the issue is more than just a “local flood” theory. For instance, a hyperpreterist guy who has helped host many hyperpreterist conferences had this to say recently:

    I’m here to throw out the warning as to where many of these possible conclusions could lead to. I’d like to suggest that the thinkers and theologians consider how local interpretation after local interpretation may affect the gospel story. Once such things are firm in our mind how will we present the work of Christ? As a transcending universal spiritual change between God & mankind? Or is this simply yet another local (myth) narrative detailing the struggle and strife between a society and their god/s? What will set apart the Bible from The Epic of Gilgamesh as we present the good news to others? Whether correct or incorrect, what does one tell people when they explain that the creation story was local, the flood was local, the history and prophecies local, salvation local and destruction local as indicated by Jewish narrative. (source)

    Did you notice that even this hyperpreterist realizes that some of the conclusions of hyperpreterism MAY AFFECT THE GOSPEL — I’d submit it doesn’t just MAY, but is DOES affect & redefine the Gospel.

    The faction of hyperpreterists opposing Covenantal Creation was lead by Sam Frost, but in a recent response to Covenant Creationism, Frost appeared (even to his fellow hyperpreterists) to be trying to forge some middle ground or capitulate (perhaps so he wouldn’t be “left in the dustbin” of hyperpreterist history as the hyperpreterist quoted above claims).

    Here are some comments from Frost’s fellow hyperpreterists:

    I thought you [Sam Frost] clearly presented a local flood view too. And I thought Tim did a good job of recapping exactly what you stated in your presentation. ok, now I really need some clarification on your part concerning the flood and your position. (hyperpreterist stating he thinks Frost is teaching a type of local flood — read more)

    So, before on of the bulldogs come to say it, I’m not “smearing” or “attacking or “misrepresenting” Frost or his fellow hyperpreterists — THEY are seeing & saying the same things I have observed about all of this. They just don’t like when I say it because I don’t couch it.

    Lastly, hyperpreterists who claim that “Sure, all movements experience factionalization” & claim it is a sign of “maturity” & growth & then try to once again incriminate historic Christianity miss 2 important points.

    1. The Bible says HERESIES (or factions) were to come so people would know WHO/WHAT was approved. (see 1 Cor 11:19)
    2. Even the cults like Mormonism & JWs factionalize — ever hear of the LDS vs RLDS & the “Bible Students” vs the JWs?

    Heresies or factions are BAD for those caught in them but good for the Christian community at large because it SHOULD help us “recognize” the “approved” from the disapproved. It should help us recognize truth from error. A light shines brightest when it is surrounded by darkness.

    The reason hyperpreterism is & will continue to greatly factionalize is NOT a sign of maturity & growth but rather it is a sign of its rabid individualism that calls for each individual to privately interpret the Bible — to ignore or downplay or redefine 2000 years worth of Christianity. Such individualism will eventually make every hyperpreterist his own pastor & pope…his own apostle, his own Messiah.

  72. There is no doubt that the “Preterist Movement” has many strange doctrines mutating within itself, often leading to abhorence and dismissal out of hand by many believers. Sam Frost, you know well this problem, having the need to ban a North Carolina preterist from speaking in your church. I have this evidence from a CD you produced. I myself have been asked to leave a certain FP blog, because I challenged some FP doctrines and was told that I was endangering newborn preterists on list. Some of the doctrines floated have been “there is no devil/satan”, there is no soul, “there is no eternal punishment of the wicked”, indeed some of these things appear to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, when you consider the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. IF there is one thing “FP” has caused me to reconsider, it is the doctrine of “eternal salvation”. Apostle Paul stated that Christians need to “hold fast” until the end. There are many “IF’S” throughout the Apostle’s Doctrine. Is it any wonder that the book of Hebrews major contention for Canon was it’s lack of a 2nd chance to apostates. There is much I accept Biblically regarding the 1st century parousia, resurrection and judgment, but the “FP” movement fails to answer too many questions. Questions hidden to those who lived during that time. I have been to what is left of the seven churches of Asia Minor, as well as Patmos, and I can attest with on sight inspection ‘that world and the seas thereof, have passed away’. There are many godly “FP’S” that I do not include in this critique, who still believe in charity, holiness and sound doctrine, but there are too many dissidents corrupting what truth is being recovered from Scripture and sober historical interpretations. In the matter of the 1,000 years (REV 20), which FP’S painstakingly stumble over to their much discredit, I would simply ask; if John was writing Revelation in the late 60’s, why is he projecting this event into the future, since it would nearly be at the very end. Furthermore, had believing Gentiles been trained in Jewish Apocolyptic Literatue and Hebrew Gematria? Perhaps, and for the “time at hand” it served them well. For I learned that much imagery written to the Seven Churches was based upon realtime events that would be current and visually locative, therefore well understood by that generation, i.e., what was thought to be impregnable Sardis, having soiled it’s garments during a night invasion.

  73. So, a question was asked about how a preterist who doesn’t accept local flood might reconcile this with 2 Peter 3, of a person who continually demonstrates an inability to grasp what preterists like myself have said…lol.

    And now Roderick wants to play a ratio game. Ummm, in order to establish ratio you have to know all possible outcomes. And this can not be known apart from omniscience.

    So yes. Roderick here apparently thinks he’s god. But hey, no hard feelings right? He calls me my own “Messiah”.

    Roderick quotes a guy who misread Sam as proof that Sam said something he didn’t say…

    Man, you guys are something else. This is some of the most amateurish stuff i’ve ever seen.

    If anyone has actually read Sam’s criticism, then you’ll understand that what he presented is no different than what “orthodox” evangelicals have been saying for centuries; that Genesis 2 recapitulates one of the days.

    Both Rich and Rod are wrong.
    Phil: Jason: You know what I find interesting? There are some within the Full Preterism belief system that believe there was a “local flood” and appeal to centuries of evangelical teachings to validate this “local flood” yet believe, at least in regards to their “all was fulfilled in AD70” that centuries of evangelical teachers got it all wrong. How do you personally reconcile this?

  74. Phil, are you asking me to reconcile what other people are doing? Why not ask them?

    Phil: Sorry if I wasn’t clearer. Let me re-phrase the question. What is your personal opinion of those who hide behind Orthodoxy and Church History when it suits them and reject Orthodoxy and Church History when it doesn’t suit them?

  75. I hate being misrepresented. Brian wrote, “People like Sam Frost and Tim Martin realize this, so they go back and make the flood local.” Brian, I have a long public record of DISAGREEING with Tim Martin on this point!!! Don’t you read? Tim even erroneously tried to tie me in with the local flood theory! I can’t take your criticism seriously when such a blatant and elementary mistake like this is made.

    Albert, yes, we do not allow certain folks to speak at conferences. What’s the problem? When someone denies the role of the literal being, “satan”,then, sorry, I have problems. You guys seem to think that full preterism is originating these views….again, I urge you, READ YOUR CHURCH HISTORY. If preterism is new (as argued), then how could it have originated all of these OLD views? Sigh.

    Phil asked a fantastic question about people being choosey in their church history…taking what they like, leaving behind wht they don’t. When used as a standard, Phil, I call it hypocrisy. The Bible alone is the Supreme Judge over ALL matters of faith and practice, and it is to that book, and that book alone, that we are to submit to “every word” as Truth. No other history, no other book can make this claim.

  76. Thanks for the clarification Phil. And Sam beat me to it.

    I would emphasize that it is hypocrisy IF “used as a standard”. However, Sam and I have made it clear that we do not use history as the standard, but as a “help”; perfectly in line with the WCF.

    Scripture, not church history (tradition), is the rule of faith.

  77. Hi Sam,

    Sorry if I wrongly identifed your theology with Tim Martin’s. Somewhere I heard that you held a local flood view, and were trying to accomodate your views to agree with covenant creationism.

    Brian

  78. A hyperpreterist begins questioning hyperpretersm’s rabid private interpretation methodology:

    We hark on “Let Scripture interpret Scripture,” but I wonder if we don’t equivocate sometimes. Just because covenental language is similar to creation or destruction language here or there, is there REALLY a one-to-one relationship? Based on what I’ve seen lately, and my own studies, the great strength of [hyper] preterism is starting to look like its greatest weakness as well: an overly hyperactive devotion to “sola scriptura.”…I honestly struggle with the same problems. If EVERYTHING is local, then what do we have?…I think the best option is always to be humble and ask God for guidance. Studying the Bible is tough work! (source)

    Well yes, studying the Bible is really, really tough work when you do so via a private interpretation method, chucking 2000 years of Christian interpretation & instead making up your own. No doubt this guy will be snapped back into the party line pretty quickly since private interpretation (under the banner “Sola Scripture”) is a hallmark of hyperpreterism.

  79. Brian, you have NOT misrepresented Frost, even his own fellow hyperpreterists think he is trying to, “accommodate” his views to better align with the “Covenantal Creationism” faction. The following are quotes from Tim Martin & Jeff Vaughn, the main advocates of the CC view:

    It appears that Frost has met us half-way with his “synthesis” on the creation account in Genesis.

    We understand Frost’s creation model as a “partial Covenant Creation” view of Genesis creation.

    Frost provides a “partial Covenant Creation” model and then declares any attempt to integrate Genesis 1 with the consummation at the end of Revelation “off limits” by definition.

    By suggesting that the Tabernacle/Temple is the background of creation in Genesis 2, Frost has unwittingly affirmed the full Covenant Creation view.

    Frost views the flood destruction in the same context as the Tabernacle/Temple scene of Genesis 2, which Frost earlier stated is not global. (Frost argued for a local context of Genesis 2 to avoid any conflict with his supposed physical-universe context of Genesis 1- see Frost, pp. 12-15). The above comments surprise us because Frost has defended a global flood for years. Yet, with no fanfare he now appears to accept a local flood judgment related to a covenant context, roughly paralleling the views expressed in BCS. [beyond creation science — main book promoting CC view]

    We want to take a moment to thank Frost for this concession. Genesis teaches a local flood. We hope our readers, as well as advocates in the modern YEC movement, will notice something very significant here. Full [hyper]Preterists, both YEC and OEC, now teach publicly that the Genesis flood was not a global judgment, but a covenant judgment related to a covenant context. Frost has vindicated a local flood view similar to what was presented in BCS. Frost’s model would lead [hyper]preterists who embrace his views to abandon (and argue against) the global flood view at the heart of the modern YEC movement. [hyper]Preterism refutes a global flood according to Sam Frost.

    Will the tens of millions of YEC Christians who define their worldview by those beliefs consider Frost as a young-earth creationist or an evolutionist? How will Frost convince them that [hyper]preterism and YEC beliefs do not conflict? How will Frost convince them of a local flood that matches his partial Covenant Creation model?

    Frost’s attempt at a “synthesis” on this issue has been a very fruitful exercise from our perspective.

    The details outlined above [in the Martin/Vaughn response] demonstrate why Frost’s “synthesis” will not survive careful examination.

    For many of us in Covenant Eschatology today, partial preterism was a way station, a rest area or bridge from futurism to a consistent, fulfilled eschatology. Sam Frost has now provided that service for the creation account.

    As you can see, Martin & Vaughn accurately assess Frost’s sly attempt to sneak in a hybrid form of their “Covenantal Creationism” & yet they also take him to task for not being consistent with his hyperpreterism. If Frost thinks people are “misrepresenting” him, let him first take it up with his fellow hyperpreterists.

  80. Brian,

    Roderick made that wrong deduction, too. He didn’ apologize for it. Thanks for clearing that up. Even some of the guys at Planet Preterist assumed from what I wrote that I was now local flood! I insisted I wasn’t, and some STILL tried to say I was….I’m like, is this how bad writing posts have become! Haha. Thanks again, Brian. Peace.

  81. Actually Frost does this quite a lot. He first comes out against a position & then slowly equivocates without actually saying he was wrong & ultimately ends up taking up the very position of his opponent — even if in some “synthesized” way. He did this to me while I was a hyperpreterist. Using the hyperpreterist methodology, I was advocating that the role of elder/pastor was only a thing for BEFORE AD70, since the apostles APPOINTED all the elders & since after AD70 there would be no more apostles to appoint them, I wrongly concluded that after AD70 there would be no more function of pastor/elder. Further, I deduced that elders in the first-century worked in tandem with the apostles — after all elders were on the Jerusalem Council & made decisions even on the actions of the apostles. The elders of the pre-AD70 era appeared to have something like “inspiration” whereas no post AD70 elder/pastor can claim. That was my position & the position of which Frost originally opposed.

    Frost, later & slowly acquiesced (as Martin & Vaughn pointed out — “without fanfare”). Frost wrote in an article called “Observations”:

    Even the Elders in that time [pre-AD70] had authority to ‘teach the oracles of God.’ But, I do not believe, because I am a [hyper] preterist, that such ‘inspired’ authority exists today. I do not believe that God has set up yet another ‘nation’ in the new covenant that commands uniformity and punishment if uniformity is not met. — Sam Frost speaking of the role of pre & post AD70 Christian “elders/pastors”

    This was EXACTLY what I had been advocating yet Frost changes his position “without fanfare”. Like he has done with the Covenantal Creation position, he takes up his opponent’s position & tries to pretend it was his all along. Notice also how Frost says he takes this position because he is a [hyper] preterist — again, like I did at the time, using hyperpreterist methodology to conclude these things. As Martin & Vaughn pointed out, their position to be “more consistent” with hyperpreterist thinking so too was my position “more consistent” with hyperpreterist thinking — this is the reason Frost MUST eventually take up some form of the positions he initially opposes, but in such a “without fanfare” way so that he can save face. After all, Frost is the great, great M.A.R. — how could anyone come up with something before he does???

    Also note that Frost says God did not intend to “set up a new authority that commands uniformity & punishment if uniformity is not met” — Well no wonder Frost is then ok with every person bringing a private interpretation to the table. There is no way to regulate uniformity in Frost’s mind. As a matter of fact, this is exactly the reason nothing can EVER be considered wrong by hyperpreterists. There is no way Frost can claim Martin or Vaughn’s Covenant Creation view is wrong because there is no way to maintain uniformity. Everything becomes subjective. Add to that, in a hyperpreterist church ruled by this non-rule, there is no way to carry out “punishment” if someone comes teaching some really odd-ball stuff. People would have no right to kick anyone out no matter what they were teaching. Frost effectively is advocating theological anarchy.

    Lastly, about this time, Frost in a phone conversation with me [which he’ll probably deny ever having] told me he was ready to publicly declare his support of “Consistent Cessationism” (the name I gave to the view I was advocating) if I would back off of criticizing him. I lost more & more respect for Frost as a theologian (even while I was a hyperpreterist) because it seemed he was ready to PANDER whenever it served him. I was seeing this pattern with him. I never took him up on his offer & continued to criticize his views & the general hyperpreterist movement until eventually I renounced hyperpreterism all together. The entire movement is one big theological anarchy with a bunch of wanna-be “Luthers” running around who behave more like “Tyler Durdens“. So yes, Frost HAS & IS taking up the positions of his opponents & trying to pretend they are his own. It is called pandering.

  82. man, what a bunch of clowns. Brian didn’t even read Sam’s paper; and went off want someone else said.

    Brian apologizes (for once) and Roderick says, no you didn’t…no you didn’t. You understood right…blah, blah, blah.

    I seriously doubt Rod even read the paper. For anyone interested in actually reading it, versus rambling on with this clown, who wants to insist that sam is saying things he didn’t say, here ya go:

    http://thereignofchrist.com/writings/book-reviews/35-book-reviews/63-critique-of-beyond-creation-science.html

  83. Hi Guys,

    Well, this sure has been an interesting thread however I think its run its course. I’ll shut this down at about 3am EST tomorrow so you have until then to say whatever else you need to say.

    Thanks again for participating and Dorothy will have some fresh meat for you all to chew on tomorrow.

    Phil

  84. Phil,

    I was going to write a post..but I think the readers can see just what kind of character Roderick is by his own words. It’s all he has: obsession. It’s why he is ignored by the majority of folks.

  85. Why is Jason always apologizing for Sam? Yes I did read the paper. Remember, you guys accuse me of “stalking”…of hanging out on your websites 24/7…of reading every little thing you write, so of course I read it. Then I read the Martin/Vaughn response (here). Then I read most of the comments associated with the entire issue. I like to be informed about what I’m talking about before I talk about it. I try to actually quote & source link what people say instead of merely calling them “clowns” & “boobs”.

    Anyhow, I want to thank Dorothy & Phil for the series of articles they have written putting the spotlight on this religious movement called hyperpreterism/full preterism. To Dorothy, I’m sure it has left you a little discouraged as you now see that no amount of interaction with hyperpreterists seems to produce fruit, but every once in a while you will see it pay off. We write mainly to help people avoid getting sucked into this cult, since once you are there it is difficult to escape.

    To Phil, as you can see, opening up this topic almost highjacks a website but I thank you for doing it & putting up with the grief you got from both sides & from me personally. Please forgive me.
    Phil: No forgiveness is necessary Roderick but thanks for the apology.

    To the Christian readers, I don’t know how long you followed this series because at times it may have looked like personal squabbling but let me assure you it is only “personal” because the very, very raw/egotistical personalities involved. Keep focused on the the over-arching premise of what it takes to believe in something like hyperpreterism & you will be able to easily defeat it before it takes root. Remember, the over-arching premise is that for 2000 years Christianity has been wrong — once a person believes that, they open themselves up for not just the error of hyperpreterism, but all sorts of lies.

    God bless & keep you in Christ Jesus & His Church
    Roderick

Comments are closed.