The Dangerous Theological Errors of Hyper-Preterism Part 7: Was Jesus a False Prophet? by Dorothy Anderson

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


Today I ran across an interesting statement by Mike Sullivan at Pret Cosmos.



The implications of the futurist Jesus is that he is a failure and false prophet.  Thankfully most futurists do not embrace the consistent implications of their futurist doctrine.”


I bring this to your attention because looking at this statement I realized that there is more here than meets the eye. This is how Mike’s statement equated to me:


  1. The Church has declared futurism for 2000+ years.

  2. Implications of futurism – Jesus is a failure and a false prophet.


Now looking at this I can only come to one conclusion. According to this analogy, the Church, by holding to futurist expectations has by implication declared Jesus to be a false prophet by declaring and holding to a futurist view.


Now I’m sure the claim could be made that the Church just didn’t “get it” and thus this was just an error on her part, but you see, it isn’t just that the Church has taught futurism, it’s that the Church has held futurist events as essentials of the faith. In other words, in order to be considered Christian, futurism was considered so important as to be indispensable. To me, that changes the complexion of a false understanding and it’s no longer just missing an ingredient. It colors the Church in a very poor light and denies the power of the Holy Spirit to lead her into all truth.


John 16:13


However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.


In a nutshell, if hyper-preterism is true, then the testimony of the Church has been false and by implication has declared Jesus as a failure and a false prophet because the one issue the Church has been united upon, no matter the denomination, is futurism.


When I really look at statements like the one made by Mike, I see a direct attack upon the character of the Church.


Last but not least, looking at this from the perspective of marriage, how in the world could some one as intimate as the Church is with Christ make such a huge blunder in their representation of Him. I can’t even wrap my mind around that one.




8 thoughts on “The Dangerous Theological Errors of Hyper-Preterism Part 7: Was Jesus a False Prophet? by Dorothy Anderson

  1. Hyperpreterism MUST depict a failed Church, a failed Holy Spirit, a failed apostolic teaching, a failed Jesus, a failed God. If God’s plans & guidance is seen to have been fundamentally successful then it immediately refutes the overarching premise of hyperpreterism & thus hyperpreterism would be a non-starter before you even get to the “proof-texts”.

    I call it the “scorched earth” policy. The hyperpreterists must destroy historic Christianity so that they can put in its place, their own version. The problem is, in a scorched earth approach, the destruction makes even the hyperpreterist dwelling uninhabitable. The cut off the very branch they are trying to sit upon.

    • Rod,

      The one thing that always leaves me shaking my head is this;

      What makes those adhering to Full Preterism so special that they get what nearly everyone for the last 2000 years, including the Apostles didn’t?


  2. Hi Phil,

    It’s called PRIDE. Satan has deluded these people just like he deluded Eve. And they’ve bitten right into the apple. Now they can’t help thinking they’re wiser than everyone else.


    • …what?? You mean Eve was a prêterist too? Surely you can’t put her with – how did you say it… “Hyper-Preterist ranks are filled with drunks, perverts, sodomites…”

  3. Clearly it is the preterists who make Jesus a false prophet. For if they claim that Jesus said He would return in glory within that generation’s span, ie 70 AD) then he did not and He must have been a false prophet.

    I mean, the ascension was physical. The disciples saw it. And in Acts 1:11 the two men (angels, presumably) told them that they would see Jesus return IN THE SAME WAY.

    This clearly did not happen in 70.

    I can no longer find preterist scholarship honest, not after hearing one man claim that eretz in Hebrew only meant local land. hence the parousia was to the Jews only in 70AD . A quick look at Genesis 1:1 refuted this one in only two minutes work. Or is it really the case that in the beginning “God made the heavens and the local land of israel”?

    • It’s pretty clear in:

      Matthew 24: 36 – 44

      Mark 13: 32 – 37

      Luke 17: 26 – 30, 34 – 36

      that know one knows when Jesus is coming back. It’s also clear in the gospels, that every will know he he does come back.

  4. MS Anderson:

    how in the world could some one as intimate as the Church is with Christ make such a huge blunder in their representation of Him?


    Intimate? The church is intimate with Christ? That would show in the fruits of the Spirit which i have never seen in 30 years a christian; and which I have hardly ever seen in all my studies of church history.

    I do not hold this high view of the Church, i cannot. Our innate legalism shows we have never got grace right. So why does it follow that we must have got eschatology right?

    BUT I reject preterism not because of the church, but because of scripture.

    AS the saying goes: SOLA SCRIPTURA

Comments are closed.