The Greening of Eschatology! aka The Green House on Straw Hill by Sharon Nichols

Hello all! As you may or may not know I’m involved with a Theology Website called Theology Explained. The owner of the site, Ms. Sharon Nichols, has written a post I would like to direct your attention to and you can read it in its entirety here.

In light of the fact Mr. Green and others aren’t allowed to comment at the site hosting the article, I’m going to allow those of you who aren’t members to respond here at Theology Today. Please be advised that I’m under no obligation to publish your comments nor is Ms. Nichols under any obligation to respond to your comments.


Advertisements

68 thoughts on “The Greening of Eschatology! aka The Green House on Straw Hill by Sharon Nichols

  1. Phil, thank you for the opportunity to respond to Sharon here. You are very gracious, as always.

    Sharon wrote:

    “It is King’s premise (NOT Dr. Hill’s premise) the early church ‘lacked spiritual apprehension.’ Nowhere in context can I find the supposed ‘premise’ of Dr. Hill to be that ‘futurism constitutes another gospel’ as Mr. Green asserts.

    Sharon continues:

    “It is King who wants us to believe the ‘sum and substance’ of the gospel was ‘stripped of its historical foundation’ and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, and that because King has no problem attributing a ‘lack of spiritual apprehension’ to those early Christian, unlike Dr. Hill who conveys a sense of unbelief at King’s proposal.

    Sharon continues:

    “it is Mr. King who is claiming the reason there is no historical writings teaching the HP view is because apparently those poor, ignorant Christians had, ‘no light in them.’

    Sharon continues:

    “Dr. Hill specifically states he is commenting on King’s ‘judgment on the early church’ and not, as Mr. Green tries to make it appear, that this is a ‘premise’ of Dr. Hill’s. It is King’s ‘premise’ that the early Christians had ‘no light in them.’ Once again we see it is Mr. King who is casting aspersions on the mental capabilities of those early Christians, not Dr. Hill.”

    My response:

    Sharon, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER HINTED, IMPLIED, SUGGESTED, INTIMATED, INSINUATED, OR OTHERWISE EVEN LEANED IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF SO MUCH AS EVEN DREAMING that Hill’s premise was this:

    “The early church lacked spiritual apprehension. Futurism constitutes another gospel. The sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The early Christians had poor mental capabilities. They had no light in them.”

    Why would I impute such premises to Hill? OF COURSE Hill never said or implied or even remotely imagined ANY of those things, and I would never say he did.

    Rather, as I wrote, this was Hill’s argumentative premise:

    *IF* (IF) “hyper-preterism” is true, *THEN* (THEN) futurism constitutes another gospel.

    Sharon, the first 3/5ths your article is altogether erroneous. It refutes an argument I NEVER made –a premise I would never assign to Hill. You misrepresented what I said Hill’s premise was.

    Now, I don’t know why, but after you shifted your article into the “Replies” section, suddenly you began to _correctly_ portray the premise I assigned to Hill. In that section, you no longer portray me as saying that Hill believes that “futurism is a false gospel.” Now you portray my presentation of Hill’s premise accurately as: “IF hyper-preterism is true, THEN futurism is a false gospel.”

    I’m thankful that in the last 2/5ths of your article you changed your erroneous portrayal of what I said. Now if you would edit and remove the misrepresentations in the first section (quoted in their entirety above), that would be good. 🙂

    Now to respond to the remainder of your article:

    King said that the post-70, futurist church was deficient in mental or spiritual apprehension (WSTTB, 104). Hill says that King’s charge logically “entails the abandonment of . . . the ‘sum and substance’ of the apostolic gospel” (WSTTB, 104).

    Yes, when Hill says “sum and substance” he is quoting King, but it is still Hill’s own argument that *IF* “hyper-preterism” is true *THEN* the futurist church abandoned “the sum and substance of the gospel,” and was therefore damned. As Hill bluntly puts it on page 106:

    “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then indeed King’s judgment on the early church is more than justified –truly, ‘there is no light in them.'”

    Yes, Hill is quoting Max King quoting Isaiah, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that Hill is making the argument himself that IF fulfilled eschatology is truth THEN there was “no light” in the church fathers.

    Note in the above quote that Hill is AGREEING with King’s conclusion (IF fulfilled eschatology is true). So much for your statement that “Dr. Hill is not agreeing with Mr. King in any way, shape or form.” 🙂

    Hill says again on pages 118-119, at the end of his chapter:

    “If [“hyper-preterism”] claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made. Somebody –no, everybody– fumbled the faith away.”

    There is no doubt that Hill argued that if “hyper-preterism” is true then futurism constitutes another gospel . (The fact that I replaced the word “this” with [“hyper-preterism”] doesn’t change the meaning of what Hill said.)

    Hill AGREED with King that IF “hyper-preterism” is true THEN the post-70 church was deficient. And Hill takes King’s position further than King took it, saying that the post-70 church was not merely deficient, as King says, but was DAMNED, if “hyper-preterism” is true. (No, King did not believe the post-70 church was damned. The quotes that made him appear to say that were taken out of context.)

    Sharon wrote: “[Hill] nowhere is claiming as his premise that ‘if hyper-preterism is true, then futurism is a false gospel.’ Rather, just the opposite is true.”

    “Just the opposite is true”? What does that mean? Hill said that if hyper-preterism is true, then futurism is the true gospel? That doesn’t make sense.

    I suggest you do a re-write of your article, Sharon.

    Dave 🙂

  2. Why is it that every “ex-preterist” seems to think that misrepresenting preterists is ok? It seems like a blitzkrieg theology movement…cut down preterists at all costs, who cares if its accurate or not!

    • Hi Ed,

      Welcome to Theology Today!

      When you say “every ex-preterist” seems its ok to misrepresent “preterists” (hyper preterists) you need to be specific and tell us which ones and how they’ve misrepresented. Otherwise you’ll wind up with as much credibility around here as your dear friend Roderick Edwards, whose credibility rating is roughly -100……

      Phil

  3. Hi Dave,

    Dave wrote:

    Hill AGREED with King that IF “hyper-preterism” is true THEN the post-70 church was deficient. And Hill takes King’s position further than King took it, saying that the post-70 church was not merely deficient, as King says, but was DAMNED, if “hyper-preterism” is true. (No, King did not believe the post-70 church was damned. The quotes that made him appear to say that were taken out of context.)

    Please provide a quote from Dr. Hill saying the church was “DAMNED if “hyper-preterism” is true.”

    Dave wrote:

    Sharon, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER HINTED, IMPLIED, SUGGESTED, INTIMATED, INSINUATED, OR OTHERWISE EVEN LEANED IN THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF SO MUCH AS EVEN DREAMING that Hill’s premise was this:

    “The early church lacked spiritual apprehension. Futurism constitutes another gospel. The sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The early Christians had poor mental capabilities. They had no light in them.”

    Why would I impute such premises to Hill? OF COURSE Hill never said or implied or even remotely imagined ANY of those things, and I would never say he did.

    Yet you willingly led your readers to attribute those things to Dr. Hill! On page 34 of your book “House Divided” you quoted Dr. Hill, under the heading of Hill’s Premise:

    “None of the earliest Christians … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology … We ought to pause and reflect on what this argument is saying … [The] charge entails the abandonment of … the “sum and substance” of the apostolic gospel (104) … If “fulfilled eschatology” is true, then … there is no light in [the early church] (106) … If [“hyper-preterism”] claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made. Somebody – no, everybody – fumbled the faith away. (119; cf. 65)”

    Immediately following these quotes of Dr. Hill, you state:

    “Hill never explains why it is that he believes that futurism constitutes another gospel if [hyper] preterism is true. He argues from this premise without attempting to prove it.”

    Dave, if this isn’t what you just said you never claimed was Hill’s premise, then I’m a bit flabbergasted.

    Continuing in the same paragraph, you go on to write,

    “This is because there is no exegetical reason to label futurism a damnable heresy if preterism is true.”

    See folks! There you have it. Dave has begun to refute the straw man he has set up. Notice also he has introduced the term “damnable heresy”. Where did that come from???

    Dave, you go on to “refute” Dr. Hill’s supposed premise and on page 36 you conclude by saying, “Hill’s premise is false”. Well Amen to that! Not for the reasons YOU have put forth, but because it was never what you claim it was from the beginning!

    The point of my paper stands. No need to re-write anything Dave.

    I would also like to add that no one has to take what I wrote at face value. All they have to do is compare the two chapters for themself – and I hope everyone does! Look up the quotes of Dr. Hill which Dave strings together and read them in their original context. Let everyone make up their own mind.

    For even further clarification, listen to Dr. Hill himself on the CD which I believe Ed Steven’s sells on his website. (I’m not sure who else sells it.) Be sure to listen to the discussion period which follows because Dr. Hill clearly and plainly states his stance and the purpose of his paper. Not once does he EVER hint that his premise is as Dave paints it to be.

    Blessings,
    Sharon

  4. Sharon: “Please provide a quote from Dr. Hill saying the church was “DAMNED if “hyper-preterism” is true.”

    Sharon, you quoted the quotes yourself:

    Dr. Hill: “None of the earliest Christians … took a hyper-preterist view of eschatology … We ought to pause and reflect on what this argument is saying … [The] charge entails the abandonment of … the ‘sum and substance’ of the apostolic gospel (104) … If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then … there is no light in [the early church] (106) … If [‘hyper-preterism’] claims to be the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), we have to conclude that the delivery was never quite made. Somebody – no, everybody – fumbled the faith away. (119; cf. 65)”

    Those quotes mean what they say and they say what they mean. There is no deception. Hill himself argued (yes, while quoting Max King) that if “hyper-preterism” is true, then the church is damned. According to Hill, if ‘hyper-preterism’ is true, then the historic, futurist church exists without the sum and substance of the gospel; the historic, futurist church has no light in it; and the historic, futurist church does not have the Faith. All those things are the case IF ‘hyper-preterism’ is true. That’s exactly what Hill stated (yes, while quoting Max King).

    Sharon, you spent the first 3/5ths of your article saying that I attributed the following premise(s) to Hill:

    PREMISE A. “The early church lacked spiritual apprehension. Futurism constitutes another gospel. The sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The early Christians had poor mental capabilities. They had no light in them.”

    I
    MOST
    DEFINITELY
    DID
    NOT
    attribute
    those
    things
    to
    Hill.

    The premise I attributed to Hill was THIS:

    PREMISE B. “IF ‘hyper-preterism’ is true, THEN” all those bad things I just listed (Premise A) are true.

    I’m sure you can see the difference between Premise A and Premise B. I did *NOT* attribute premise A to Hill (as you said I did). I attributed premise B to Hill. There is a HUGE difference between the two premises.

    Sharon: “Dr. Hill clearly and plainly states his stance and the purpose of his paper. Not once does he EVER hint that his premise is as Dave paints it to be.”

    Sharon, when I speak of Hill’s “premise,” I don’t mean his thesis statement, or his stated purpose for writing his paper/chapter. I’m talking about the root presupposition upon which his condemnation of “hyper-preterism” is based.

    Dave 🙂

  5. Dave,

    Sorry, but all I see is more equivocation on your part. My paper stands as is. Let the readers decide. And I hope more of them will take the two books side-by-side and check it out for themselves.

    Sharon

  6. Hi Sharon,

    Merely saying that I equivocate amounts to nothing more than rhetoric and empty accusation. What exactly are my equivocations? Please list them here?

    Until and unless you do that, your claim that your paper “stand as is” is also just rhetoric.

    I’ll be standing by to see that list of my equivocations.

    Dave 🙂

  7. Green writes, “Sharon, when I speak of Hill’s “premise,” I don’t mean his thesis statement, or his stated purpose for writing his paper/chapter. I’m talking about the root presupposition upon which his condemnation of “hyper-preterism” is based.”, then turns around for evidence of equivocation. WOW!

    PaulT

  8. PaulT wrote:

    “Green writes, ‘Sharon, when I speak of Hill’s “premise,” I don’t mean his thesis statement, or his stated purpose for writing his paper/chapter. I’m talking about the root presupposition upon which his condemnation of “hyper-preterism” is based.’, then turns around for evidence of equivocation. WOW!”

    My response:

    Paul, as usual you make no sense whatsoever. “Premise” and “presupposition” are synonyms.

    Dave

    • Golly Gee Willikers you shot yourself again. Let me show you why. You draw the exception that premise doesn’t mean what Sharon believes it to mean, yet what you claim you meant by the term is a synonym for the term as Sharon understood it to mean and you claim I make no sense? Why don’t you man-up and admit you employed a logical fallacy? Here is the definition of “synonym”, “one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses” Dave, you just admitted Sharon is correct and you are equivocating to cover your tracks.

      • Paul wrote: “You draw the exception that premise doesn’t mean what Sharon believes it to mean, yet what you claim you meant by the term is a synonym for the term as Sharon understood it to mean”

        My response: You are morbidly confused, as usual Paul. A “root presupposition” (what I meant by “premise”) is NOT the same thing as a stated “stance” and “purpose” (what Sharon thought I meant by “premise”).

        Think before you post.

        Dave

  9. I wrote to Sharon: I’ll be standing by to see that list of my equivocations.

    My follow-up:

    Hi again Sharon,

    No need to take time searching through my chapter and/or my posts here for my alleged equivocations. Just list TWO (2) of them. If I’m guilty, as you say, of “more equivocation,” then I’m sure you can provide just two examples off the top of your head of my continued equivocations.

    Besides, you said in your article that I deliberately mislead people. And deliberate equivocation is a form of LYING/DECEPTION. I’m sure you wouldn’t accuse someone of lying without having actual evidence to support your accusation.

    So, I (we) will be standing by for the evidence (just two examples) that proves your accusation that I have been lying (deliberately equivocating).

    Thank you Sharon,

    Dave 🙂

  10. Incidentally, I did see a good example recently of equivocation. You might be interested in seeing it. Here it is:

    [Dave]
    > > > > [Sharon] says I’m outside of the
    > > > > Christian faith,under a delusion, and
    > > > > that I have a false view of the
    > > > > gospel.

    [Sharon]
    > > > Where in my article did I say any of
    > > > those things about you?

    [Dave quoting Sharon]
    > > “Mr. Green and the HP’s are on the
    > > outside of the historic Christian
    > > faith
    . . . . Until Mr. Green and the
    > > HP’s realize this, their delusion
    > > will only continue to fog their perception
    > > and lead them down a path to a false
    > > view of the gospel
    . . . . ”

    [Sharon]
    > . . . what I said is the HP is outside the > Historic Christian faith (different
    > than what you said), that the HP view
    > is a delusion which will lead you down a
    > path
    to a false Gospel. Not quite the
    > same thing as what you said I said.

    Dave 🙂

    • Dave, I’ve already told you I am not going to argue with you about this. But, for the sake of the reader here, this is what I posted elsewhere:

      Now, lets see the complete paragraph, instead of the “King of the Morse” (Dave Green’s) shortened (“…”) version, shall we?

      “Further, it does not fall to Dr. Hill to prove his point of interpretation and doctrine, but rather Mr. Green. Mr. Green and the HP’s are on the outside of the historic Christian faith and it falls to them to “prove” they are not heretical in their eschatological doctrine. It is not up to Dr. Hill to prove his accepted position. Until Mr. Green and the HP’s realize this, their delusion will only continue to fog their perception and lead them down a path to a false view of the gospel resulting from “tweaking” the historic Reformed teachings. Mr. Green has exposed himself publically. He should be arrested for indecent scholarship.”

      Reading this in CONTEXT makes a difference and clarifies my meaning. Take it for what is says. I am not going to argue about it.

  11. Sharon wrote: ” . . . I am not going to argue with you about this.”

    The problem, Sharon, is that you have leveled many, many accusations, and now you are bailing out and dodging a host of problems with what you have alleged against me and others.

    What kind of person throws out a bunch of accusations and then when she is asked to substantiate her charges, she runs away and says “I am not going to argue with you about this”? What kind of person, Sharon?

    Here are some of the questions/objections about your accusations that you have refused to answer over the past four days…….

    1. You could not name even ONE instance of my supposed list of equivocations. Not one, Sharon. So all we have is your baseless (false) accusation that I have been equivocating.

    2. You defended yourself by saying you didn’t accuse me of being outside “the Christian faith,” but only outside “the historic Christian faith.” Fine. Then WHAT is the difference between the two?

    3. How can I exist “on the outside of the historic Christian Faith” and still be “a true Christian,” as you said may be the case?

    4. You said that you didn’t say that I’m “under a delusion,” but only that my belief is a delusion? Fine. Then WHAT is the difference between the two?

    5. You said that you didn’t say that I have a false view of the gospel, but only that I am on a path to a false view of the gospel. Fine. Then are you saying that I (“hyper-preterists”) do NOT have a false view of the gospel? Yes or no.

    6. How exactly does full preterism lead someone down the road to ‘a false gospel,’ and exactly what ‘false gospel’ is it that you speak of? You have publicly made the charge. Back it up, Sharon.

    7. You say that “hyper-preterists” are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Fine. Than how do you justify uniting yourself with people who ANATHEMATIZE your brothers and sisters in Christ? I would love to hear your answer to that one, Sharon.

    I could go on. Simply saying, I am not going to argue with you about this, just doesn’t cut it Sharon, when you have so many accusations that you refuse to (or are unable to) substantiate. If this was a court room, your case would be thrown out on its ear with sounds of laughter. Not only are the accusations of your article bogus, but so are you defenses of your article. Total, totally vacant and bogus, Sharon.

    Dave

  12. Dave,

    Golly Gee Willikers, thanks for the admonition, but it appears you should have thought before you published. ROFL, time to man-up Dave.

  13. Dave,

    Were the comments from Sharon taken from her article or elsewhere because in the note you post above you quote her asking, “Where in my article did I say any of
    those things about you?”

      • Dave wrote:

        What kind of person throws out a bunch of accusations and then when she is asked to substantiate her charges, she runs away and says “I am not going to argue with you about this”? What kind of person, Sharon?

        Dave, apparently you are confusing a few issues. Please, try to keep things in context, won’t you?

        The only issue I said I wasn’t going to continue arguing with you about was concerning this paragraph from my paper:

        “Further, it does not fall to Dr. Hill to prove his point of interpretation and doctrine, but rather Mr. Green. Mr. Green and the HP’s are on the outside of the historic Christian faith and it falls to them to “prove” they are not heretical in their eschatological doctrine. It is not up to Dr. Hill to prove his accepted position. Until Mr. Green and the HP’s realize this, their delusion will only continue to fog their perception and lead them down a path to a false view of the gospel resulting from “tweaking” the historic Reformed teachings. Mr. Green has exposed himself publically. He should be arrested for indecent scholarship.”

        I stated I would not continue to argue about THIS particular issue, yet you somehow parlay this into having me say I won’t discuss anything with you. That is just not true. I would REALLY appreciate it if you would keep things in context Dave.

        I believe my paragraph above speaks for itself and is clear enough to understand without hashing it out over and over again. But I will clarify one more time Dave, in more detail, so maybe we can put this particular issue to bed.

        1. Full/Hyper Preterism is NOT the Historic eschatological Christian faith. True or False?

        Answer: True. If this offends you, I am sorry, but I am only stating a fact of life.

        2. If someone holds to what is considered a heretical eschatological view, would it be fair to say (according to the historical Christian faith) they are under a delusion? True or False.

        Answer: True. You take acception to the word delusion? Dave, one of the definitions of the word is simply “a false belief or opinion”. According to the historic Christian faith, full/hyper preterism is “a false belief or opinion”

        (I would remind you Dave, there are plenty of full/hyper preterist who have said that futurism is “a false belief or opinion” and that futurists are confused and, dare I say, delusional. So this cuts both ways. I have been accused of be deluded by traditions of men, and other choice things. So I don’t really understand your outrage about this.)

        3. If someone holds to “a false belief or opion”, will it affect other area’s of their faith? True or False?

        Answer: True. I firmly believe this to be true. (As a full/hyper preterist, I believe I was under a delusion, although I realize you would disagree) Holding to a false view of eschatology will lead one down a path of “tweaking” other doctrines.

        Thats it Dave. Take it or leave it, but that is a thorough enough exegesis of my paragraph for anyone to understand. You don’t have to accept it, but please stop saying I haven’t answered your queries on the subject. I did on your Yahoo group before you brought it over here, and now I’ve explained in greater depth here at Phil’s blog.

        Now, if you will give me some time (I do have other things to do other than debate on the internet) I will address other comments of yours.

        Sharon

  14. Sharon said:

    “Dave, apparently you are confusing a few issues. Please, try to keep things in context, won’t you? The only issue I said I wasn’t going to continue arguing with you about was concerning this paragraph from my paper:”

    My response (for now, rushing through my lunch break):

    Nice try Sharon. FIVE of the seven questions are DIRECTLY ABOUT THAT PARAGRAPH. So much for your bogus claim that you’re being taken out of context.

    Dave

  15. Sharon wrote: “Full/Hyper Preterism is NOT the Historic eschatological Christian faith. True or False? Answer: True. If this offends you, I am sorry, but I am only stating a fact of life.”

    Nice try again Sharon. You just inserted the word “eschatological” before “Christian faith.” That is NOT how your paragraph is worded, and you know it. In your paragraph, all you say is that “hyper-preterists” are “on the outside of the historic Christian faith.” Period. You did NOT say that we are outside of “the historic eschatological Christian faith,” or “historic Christian eschatology,” or “the eschatology of the historic Christian faith.” You said we are “on the outside of the historic Christian faith.” There is a HUGE difference between your paragraph and how you word the charge now, Sharon. Yet you refuse to change your paragraph to make it reflect how you word it now. Why is that Sharon?

    Sharon wrote: “If someone holds to what is considered a heretical eschatological view, would it be fair to say (according to the historical Christian faith) they are under a delusion? True or False. Answer: True.”

    This is absolutely incredible! You now admit that you said we are under a delusion! I wrote on PretCosmos that you said that “hyper-preterists” are “under a delusion,” and you denied the charge, saying on 1/30: “[W]hat I said is . . . that the HP view is a delusion. . . . Not quite the same thing as what you said I said.” Sharon, you DENIED that you held that we are “under a delusion.” You denied it. You said that only our “VIEW” is a delusion. But now you ADMIT that you believe we are “under a delusion.” You really were playing semantical games, Sharon, just like Ed Hassertt said. There is no question that he was dead on right.

    Sharon wrote: “I have been accused of be deluded by traditions of men, and other choice things. So I don’t really understand your outrage about this.)”

    My response: If “delusion” had been the only thing you said it wouldn’t have been an issue, and you know it Sharon. What you said is that we are “on the outside of the historic Christian faith,” and that we are under a “delusion” and that we continue on our path to “a false view of the gospel.” As you know full well, Sharon, anyone who reads that string of descriptions will conclude that you
    believe we are not Christians. Yet you say you consider us Christians. Yet your article portrays us as non-Christians.

    Sharon wrote: “please stop saying I haven’t answered your queries on the subject.”

    Nice try again Sharon. I’ll stop saying you haven’t answered my questions AS SOON AS YOU ACTUALLY ANSWER THEM.

    YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO NUMBER 2:

    2. What is the difference between “the Christian faith” and “the historic Christian faith.”

    YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO NUMBER 3:

    3. How can I exist “on the outside of the historic Christian Faith” and still be “a true Christian,” as you say is the case?

    YOU INADVERTENTLY ANSWERED NUMBER 4:

    Contrary to your previous semantical game on PretCosmos, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between me being “under a delusion,” and my “view” being a delusion. You previously tried to deny one and hold to the other. To paraphrase your article, you should be arrested for indecent semantics.

    YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO NUMBER 5:

    5. You said you didn’t say I have a false view of the gospel, but only that I’m on a path to a false view of the gospel. Fine. Then are you saying that I (“hyper-preterists”) do NOT have a false view of the gospel? Yes or no.

    YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO NUMBER 6:

    6. Exactly what is the false gospel that “hyper-preterism” leads to? You make the accusation. You need to back it up with evidence, not just with some fuzzy wuzzy impressions or feelings about how “hyper-preterism” leads to a false gospel.

    And I look forward to your responses to Numbers 1 and 7:

    1. You could not name even ONE instance of my supposed list of equivocations. Not one, Sharon. So all we have is your baseless (false) accusation that I have been equivocating. Name one of my equivocations, or retract the accusation, Sharon.

    7. You say that “hyper-preterists” are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Fine. Than how do you justify uniting yourself with people who ANATHEMATIZE your brothers and sisters in Christ? I would love to hear your answer to that one, Sharon.

    Sharon wrote: “please stop saying I haven’t answered your queries on the subject. I did on your Yahoo group before you brought it over here. . . . ”

    My response: GOOD GRIEF! Now you’re LYING, Sharon? LYING? You already answered those five (out of the seven) questions on PretCosmos? You KNOW that’s a lie, Sharon. A LIE. L-I-E. LIE. Shame on you. I really thought lying was the exclusive domain of PaulT in this discussion. You too, Sharon? You too? I cannot tell you how disappointing this is. 😦

    Sharon, if you really answered my questions on PretCosmos, as you say, simply paste links to those answers here. Show us those answers you posted to PretCosmos. If you do that I will humbly and publicly apologize for accusing you of lying about answering my questions. I’ll be waiting to see those answers you say you gave on PretCosmos.

    Let’s make it easy. Here are all your messages on this topic at PretCosmos. Please show us in which of these messages you answered my five (out of the seven) questions.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19357
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19358
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19361
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19377
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19380
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19387
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19398
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/message/19401

    Dave

  16. Dave,

    One huge problem in your chapter is, you never inform the reader those arguments are actually Max King’s arguments! Why is that Dave? Is it because you want your reader to think they are actually Dr. Hill’s? My paper puts the quotes and concepts into the mouth of the correct person and in the correct context. The unbiased reader will be able to see what you are doing Dave.

    You wrote:

    PREMISE A. “The early church lacked spiritual apprehension. Futurism constitutes another gospel. The sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. The early Christians had poor mental capabilities. They had no light in them.”

    I MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT attribute those things to Hill.

    So let’s see how this works out.

    Premise A:.

    the early church lacked spiritual apprehension,

    futurism constitutes another gospel,

    the sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70,

    the Christians had poor mental capabilities, and

    they had no light in them.

    Dave wrote:

    I MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT attribute those things to Hill

    The premise I attributed to Hill was THIS:

    PREMISE B. “IF ‘hyper-preterism’ is true, THEN” all those bad things I just listed (Premise A) are true.

    Premise B:

    IF hyper-preterism is true, THEN the following is true:

    the early church lacked spiritual apprehension,

    futurism constitutes another gospel,

    the sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70,

    the Christians had poor mental capabilities, and

    they had no light in them.

    Dave said: I MOST DEFINITELY DID NOT attribute those things to Hill

    So Dave, you “most definitely did not attribute those things to Hill”, and as my paper revealed, we know those things are properly attributed to MAX KING, thus:

    It is MAX KING’s premise that, If hyper-preterism is true, then futurism constitutes a false gospel.

    To reiterate, Premise A are Mr. King’s arguments, which Dave leads the readers of his chapter to believe are Dr. Hill’s (but now Dave admits they are not Dr. Hill’s). Premise A arguments are used to conclude Premise B. Thus Dave is actually dealing with Max King’s arguments in his chapter, not Dr. Hill’s, re: It is Max King who is saying, “IF ‘hyper-preterism’ is true, THEN” all those bad things [Dave] just listed (Premise A) are true.”

    As I wrote in my paper, “Finally, as I believe has been brought to light, what we have actually witnessed is that Mr. Green is essentially arguing against Mr. King rather than Dr. Hill!

    Dave, on some level you may have anticipated this because in a comment above you included the following:

    “No, King did not believe the post-70 church was damned. The quotes that made him appear to say that were taken out of context.)”

    Sharon

  17. Sharon wrote:One huge problem in your chapter is . . . . ”

    My response: One huge problem in your previous post is that you LIED.

    As for your arguments, you are reading things into Hill’s chapter and into my chapter that simply are not there. I don’t know why or how, but your powers of reasoning have been compromised. And apparently so has your integrity. It’s very disappointing to see you actually LIE and then ignore reproof. To make matters even worse, instead of confessing or correcting your LIE, you actually engage in counter-accusations.

    What happened to you Sharon? What happened?

    Dave

  18. Golly Gee Willikers, Dave writes,

    “As for your arguments, you are reading things into Hill’s chapter and into my chapter that simply are not there. I don’t know why or how, but your powers of reasoning have been compromised. And apparently so has your integrity. It’s very disappointing to see you actually LIE and then ignore reproof. To make matters even worse, instead of confessing or correcting your LIE, you actually engage in counter-accusations.”

    I wonder why it is the problem always lies with Green’s opponent? It has been interesting to watch Green engage in a few discussions attempting to shore up his logical fallacy and lack of scholarship, clearly he recognizes has been exposed. Although his “theology” is inconsistent with Scripture, indeed inconsistent within itself as a system his approach engaging his opponents remains consistent. Apparently the guy has no shame in casting false aspersions against his opponent.

    However, 1 key tell, (the term comes from the game of poker and means the behavioral trait of a player who is bluffing) that Green recognizes he lost is how quickly he employs fallacious accusations against his opponent. When Green’s position and argument is pointed out for what it is worth he consistently responds with a personal attack rather than addressing the issue that has been brought to bear. Perhaps his apparent behavioral trait stems from the fact he realizes he has been caught and therefore employs a strategy of impugning the character of his opponent in an effort to cover his tracks. The concept behind Hamlet’s line, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks” would appropriately describe Green’s behavioral trait. I doubt that I’m the first to recognize this issue with Green.

    • Pathetic Paul. Sharon blatantly LIES. Then she ignores reproof, and counter-accuses. And now you –a serial false witness– cover for her.

      Do you people have any ethics? I’m about to give up interacting with you guys simply on the grounds that you are morally disqualified from having such a discussion.

      Dave

  19. I think I’m finished discussing this here. I’ll just close with this quote from Charles Hill, which says it all:

    “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then indeed King’s judgment on the early church is more than justified –truly, ‘there is no light in them.’ The early church then failed to comprehend even the first principles of the apostles’ teaching on all the great essentials of eschatology; they failed to grasp the very terms of discourse” (WSTTB, 106).

    Let’s summaries what Hill is saying there:

    “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then . . . truly, ‘there is no light in [the early church].'”

    That was Hill’s argument. He could not have made it any clearer. How anyone can deny that Hill made that argument is baffling.

    Dave

    • Dave writes:

      Let’s summaries what Hill is saying there:

      “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then . . . truly, ‘there is no light in [the early church].’”

      That was Hill’s argument. He could not have made it any clearer. How anyone can deny that Hill made that argument is baffling.

      Dave, you are the one who is missing the argument. Dr. Hill clearly states it is KING’S argument, yet you keep insisting it is Dr. Hill’s argument!

      “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then indeed King’s judgment on the early church is more than justified –truly, ‘there is no light in them.’ The early church then failed to comprehend even the first principles of the apostles’ teaching on all the great essentials of eschatology; they failed to grasp the very terms of discourse” (WSTTB, 106).

      You are the one who keeps misrepresening Dr. Hill, yet you keep calling me a liar!

      Sharon

      • Sorry Sharon, I can’t discuss this with you. If I do then Paul will call me a liar for picking back up the conversation about Charles Hill after I withdrew from it and said good bye. 🙂

        But, I will just repeat the facts that have already been established…

        1. King argued: The church fathers lacked understanding/comprehension because they didn’t realize the second coming happened in AD 70. (King did not say the church was damned. That’s not what King meant when he quoted the verse that contains the words, “there is no light in them.”)

        2. Hill responded to King: IF “hyper-preterism” is true and the early church missed the second coming, THEN the early church was not merely dull in understanding/comprehension, as King said. It was DAMNED (There was “no light” in them).

        THAT WAS HILL’S ARGUMENT.

        I did NOT say Hill believes:

        The early Christians were dull in understanding/comprehension, and had no light in them.”

        I said Hill believes:

        IF HYPER-PRETERISM IS TRUE, THEN the early Christians were dull in understanding/comprehension (as King said), and had no light in them.”

        Hill’s own words:

        If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then indeed King’s judgment on the early church is more than justified –truly, ‘there is no light in them.’”(WSTTB, 106).

        I have no idea how it could be any clearer, Sharon.

        Dave

        • Hi Dave,

          Your argument of Dr. Hill’s premise is wrong. What you are completely ignoring is his beginning point, i.e. the survey of early Christian writings. From that survey Dr. Hill shows that hyper-preterism is NOT probable, thus futurism is more probable. The premise you assign to Dr. Hill completely ignores this fact. Armed with this information, Dr. Hill further approaches the subject by reviewing how various hyper-preterist authors deal with the facts from his survey of the historical records.

          Yet, here you come, in mid-stream of Dr. Hill’s chapter, claiming Dr. Hill’s premise is something which doesn’t even follow from his previously established argument! You have Dr. Hill completely switching gears, without any reason to back it up.

          Not to mention, in your book you never once let anyone in on the fact that the arguments Dr. Hill is dealing with are actually Max Kings. That is isn’t right Dave. The reader is given the impression these arguments are Dr. Hill’s, and they aren’t. That is just plain wrong Dave.

          Sharon

      • Sharon: “you keep calling me a liar!”

        Actually, I didn’t call you a liar (one who habitually lies). I said you lied. And you DID lie. You said you had already answered my five questions on PretCosmos. You didn’t. (and you still haven’t answered them) You lied.

        Dave

        • Dave, that is a bunch of bunk. I never said I would answer your questions to begin with, but more to the point, I never claimed to have answered them. You took my comment to Davo at Death-is-Defeated (that I didn’t deny anything) and somehow twisted it to mean I said I had answered your questions – or something along those lines. You have completely twisted my one comment so far out of what I did say, its crazy. Your accusation that I lied is just plain wrong Dave.

          Sharon

  20. Green writes,

    “Do you people have any ethics? I’m about to give up interacting with you guys simply on the grounds that you are morally disqualified from having such a discussion.”

    This is perfect, coming from a guy who it has been demonstrated represents the argument critiqued by an author as that of the author. Then after having been exposed he won’t man-up and admit his mistake. WOW!

  21. This is perfect, coming from a guy who has been demonstrated represents the argument critiqued by an author as that of the author. Then after having been exposed he won’t man-up and admit his mistake. WOW!

    That’s it, Paul. Keep committing false witness against me.

    Dave

  22. Folks, what did I tell you, Hamlette may have been thinking of Green. However, it is nice you’ve ceased the pollyannish routine.

    PaulT

  23. How many times does one need to say goodbye?

    Green, I wonder what definition of the term “nonsense” you are referencing, because the only nonsense I’ve seen that fits the commonly held definition is yours. You got caught, and you won’t confess your logical fallacy. The fact your position can only be maintained through logical fallacy isn’t lost on the reading public. Your protestations have confirmed for more than I that you know the issue. Man-up, admit the mistake, your conscience will be absolved and you won’t have to go around the internet casting aspersions.

  24. Paul wrote:How many times does one need to say goodbye?

    My response: You’re a false witness even in the most trivial matters, Paul. I said good-bye once, yet you insinuate that I said it more than once.

    Paul wrote:Man-up, admit the mistake. . . . ”

    My response: Okay. It’s a mistake to cast pearls before PaulT the False Witness.

    Dave

  25. Folks, this little exchange with Green has revealed a couple of basic flaws in his thinking. Green writes, “I think I’m finished discussing this here” and then goes on to add, “Good-bye everyone.”, yet claims, “I said good-bye once, yet you insinuate that I said it more than once.”, revealing his fundamental dishonesty. Most folks understand different words can and do convey the same concept which means Green has cast another false aspersion. Wanna bet because the Apostle never described Jesus Christ post the resurrection as having a body although he claimed he was still a man Green would argue Christ no longer has his mortal body which expired and was reanimated?

    I’m beginning to think Green is delusional, but for sure he has proven to be intellectual dishonesty in his discussions. In addition to clearly spelling out his intellectual dishonesty, Green has demonstrated he employs the same practice of the cults claiming because the exact words are not used similar wording that conveys the same meaning can’t mean what they clearly mean. You will see the later tactic I’ve describe of Green with the J.W.s who claim just because Jesus Christ never described himself as God he can’t be, although the Gospels are littered with episodes wherein Christ attributes to himself the same status.

  26. Paul cannot seem to get the truth straight, exactly why the scriptures tell us novices should not teach! They become arrogant and self-aggrandizing, attempting to glorify themselves by attacking others to show their authority. He cannot write a book himself that anyone wants to read, he cannot pastor a church anyone will attend, and he can only sling mud and lies on web sites. Its time for Christians of all stripes to rise up against the use of lies as a arguing tool. Its sad that Sharon has fallen into the same trap, thinking winning the battle at any cost means God’s commandments are null and void when arguing against preterists. Sharon you should be ashamed of yourself but you are worshiping your new futurist handlers instead of the God of the bible. You are more concerned abut fitting in socially with your new futurists friends than you are about telling the truth and actually behaving like a Christian. The stink of it rises to the heavens!

    • Hi Ed,

      You made some claims that I asked you to validate…….please do?
      https://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/the-greening-of-eschatology-aka-the-green-house-on-straw-hill-by-sharon-nichols/comment-page-1/#comment-11102

      As far as the charge of novice goes, what denomination employs you? Do you teach at an institute of higher learning in regards to spiritual matters? Please be careful when you make these charges.

      As far as arrogance goes, didn’t one of your co- authors compare House Divided to Luther’s 95 Theses in terms of impact? Nope, no arrogance there.

      Who would be Sharon’s new futurist handlers? Please be specific and state who those handlers are and how they are handling Sharon?

      How is Sharon not behaving like a Christian?

      Phil

      • Ed Hassertt wrote:Why is it that every ‘ex-preterist’ seems to think that misrepresenting preterists is ok? It seems like a blitzkrieg theology movement…cut down preterists at all costs, who cares if its accurate or not!

        Phil responded: “When you say ‘every ex-preterist’ seems it’s ok to misrepresent ‘preterists’ (hyper preterists) you need to be specific and tell us which ones and how they’ve misrepresented.”

        Hi Phil, 🙂

        I think Ed Hassertt was referring, at least in part, to our discussion with Vince Krivda and Sharon Nichols at Sovereign Grace Preterism last month….

        http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/if-hyperpreterism-is-true?groupUrl=housedivided&groupId=1632544%3AGroup%3A63744&id=1632544%3ATopic%3A69785&page=1#comments

        In that discussion, there was a veritable legion of misrepresentations. Here are most of them….

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I spent merely 3 pages in House Divided analyzing Hill’s chapter. (In reality, I spent about 27 pages.)

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I denied “the Christian dogmata of the resurrection [of Christ]” in House Divided. (In reality, I explicitly affirmed the literal, physical resurrection of Christ.)

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I called the Reformed doctrine of Justification “a damnable implication of futurism.”

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Justification was not found in the faith, works, and writings of the Church at all until Martin Luther.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Christ’s sacrifice was not accepted by the Father until the Second Coming.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that justification is accomplished by the power of the Second Coming and not by the power of the Cross.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I only believe in “some” aspects of the Christian Faith.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that the implications of justification from the futurist perspective are damnable.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Justification was a novel doctrine not found in the historic Church before the 1500’s.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that the saints were not really justified before AD 70.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Justification is already “APPLIED” to all of the elect who will ever live, so that they must logically be born justified without a sin nature.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: Ed Hassertt said that there are no quotes of Augustine from John Calvin on Justification.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: Ed Hassertt said that Justification was not in Augustinian thinking.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: Ed Hassertt said that Augustine didn’t have an understanding of Justification.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I denied that Abraham was justified by faith.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I complain that Charles Hill wrongly appeals to scriptures that already have a solid and established interpretation while he pleads with us to understand them as he does to prove his position.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Vince Krivda doesn’t hold to a future vindication of believers.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Christ had to leave the Holy of Holies in order to justify His people.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I (or “hyper-preterists”) said that we’re not really justified today.

        Good grief! 🙂

        And now, in the article above, Sharon adds to the Mountain of Misrepresentations:

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Charles Hill believes that the early church lacked spiritual apprehension.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Charles Hill believes that futurism constitutes another gospel.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Charles Hill believes that the sum and substance of the gospel was stripped of its historical foundation and lost immediately after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Charles Hill believes that the early Christians had poor mental capabilities, and that they had no light in them.

        EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: Sharon said that I repeatedly equivocate. But of course, she could not provide even one example of me equivocating.

        If I were to add the misrepresentations of PaulT, the serial false witness, this message would go on for perhaps another five pages.

        Dave 🙂

        • Hi Dave,

          I waded through all 13 pages of that link you posted. While most of what I read from the peanut gallery over at SGP was useless, I did discover a few things that might have attributed to the problem.

          When you quote Piper, Ridderbos, Ladd and others and say you agree with their position on Justification, which I believe you do agree, would those men agree with YOUR position that Justification was fully consummated in AD70?

          The truth is your doctrine of Justification IS different then the reformed and the reformers as none of them that I am aware of believe that Justification has been consummated in AD70 or any other time in the past but this is a future final event. I believe the WCF and subsequent Scripture makes it clear where the reformed stand on this issue.

          That’s where the frustration enters for some who attempt to critique your work. If you were to say “I agree with these men EXCEPT for the fact that they would disagree (the live people you quote and agree with EXCEPT you believe it to be consummated or fulfilled or whatever) these types of frustrations might be avoided and the dialogue would go much smoother. Don’t you agree?

          Phil

  27. Indicating Green exposed himself and required a stand in to save face, Ed writes,

    “Paul cannot seem to get the truth straight, exactly why the scriptures tell us novices should not teach! They become arrogant and self-aggrandizing, attempting to glorify themselves by attacking others to show their authority. He cannot write a book himself that anyone wants to read, he cannot pastor a church anyone will attend, and he can only sling mud and lies on web sites. Its time for Christians of all stripes to rise up against the use of lies as a arguing tool. Its sad that Sharon has fallen into the same trap, thinking winning the battle at any cost means God’s commandments are null and void when arguing against preterists. Sharon you should be ashamed of yourself but you are worshiping your new futurist handlers instead of the God of the bible. You are more concerned abut fitting in socially with your new futurists friends than you are about telling the truth and actually behaving like a Christian. The stink of it rises to the heavens!”

    There was a reason Ed never responded to Phil’s question at the top of the OP, which based on Phil’s question establishes his credibility. Although regular readers of the hyperpreterist debate understand Ed already had no credibility, this guy is prone to bombastic erroneous comments. For example Ed has claimed, “The only difference between this “hyper-preterist” understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past”.

    Folks, what you will come to realize if you follow the behorival patterns of the hyperpreteirst is that when they are caught supporting their position with the only possible means at their disposal, logical fallacy they resort to ad hominem, just as Ed has done above. They can’t win the argument based on Scripture, nor logic so they resort to employing logical fallacy as Sharon has exposed and then quickly the discourse deteriorates from there.

    • Paul wrote: ” . . . Ed has claimed, ‘The only difference between this “hyper-preterist” understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past.’

      “Folks, what you will come to realize if you follow the behorival patterns of the hyperpreteirst is that . . . they resort to ad hominem, just as Ed has done above.”

      My response: You just keep stepping in it, don’t you Paul? First, the above quote was not from Ed. It was from me. And second, that quote is NOT an example of ad hominem. Not even close.

      Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. How old are you? 15? You need to Google “ad hominem” and find out what it means. And while you’re at it, go to Google Images and look up “False Witness” to see a gaggle of pictures of yourself.

      Dave

      • Paul wrote:Ed . . . is prone to bombastic erroneous comments. For example Ed has claimed, ‘The only difference between this “hyper-preterist” understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past.’

        “Folks, what you will come to realize if you follow the behorival patterns of the hyperpreteirst is that . . . they resort to ad hominem, just as Ed has done above.”

        My response: I’ve decided you can’t be THAT ignorant, Paul. Perhaps I’m being too generous here, but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were not calling the “above” quote “ad hominem” (even though that’s what you seemed to say). I’m going to guess you were referring instead to the even earlier “above” quotes of Ed (where he said you can’t “get the truth straight,” etc).

        Unfortunately, if that’s what you were referring to, then you still got it wrong. Ed criticized you personally, but ad hominem isn’t merely personal attacks. If it was, then your statement that Ed uses “ad hominem” would itself be “ad hominem.”

        And that quote you erroneously attributed to Ed wasn’t “bombastic” either. Neither was it “erroneous.” After you’re finished Googling “ad hominem,” Google “bombastic” and “erroneous.”

        Dave 🙂

  28. Dave writes,

    “Paul wrote: ” . . . Ed has claimed, ‘The only difference between this “hyper-preterist” understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past.’
    “Folks, what you will come to realize if you follow the behorival patterns of the hyperpreteirst is that . . . they resort to ad hominem, just as Ed has done above.”
    My response: You just keep stepping in it, don’t you Paul? First, the above quote was not from Ed. It was from me. And second, that quote is NOT an example of ad hominem. Not even close.
    Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. How old are you? 15? You need to Google “ad hominem” and find out what it means. And while you’re at it, go to Google Images and look up “False Witness” to see a gaggle of pictures of yourself.
    Dave”

    Dave,

    I quoted Ed,
    “Reply by Edward Hassertt on January 5, 2010 at 12:43pm
    Original Post: “Dave’s position is that the basis for Justification was “accomplished” at the cross and “consummated” at AD70. No matter how you slice it that isn’t reformed. All the authors he is quoting would be appalled at his claim and likely dismayed in how he is using their comments to support his position.”

    My response: No, my position is not that “the basis” for justification was accomplished at the cross. My position is that justification itself (not merely “the basis of justification”) was accomplished at the Cross and that it was consummated in the Parousia (in AD 70).

    The only difference between this “hyper-preterist” understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past.”

    http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/if-hyperpreterism-is-true?groupUrl=housedivided&xg_source=activity&id=1632544%3ATopic%3A69785&groupId=1632544%3AGroup%3A63744&page=10#comments

    You will note in the response posted by Ed Hassert the “My Response” is emboldened. Dave, what follows the emboldened “my response” in Ed’s post?

    No, that quote of Ed’s isn’t ad hom, nor did I suggest it was, it is just erroneous. Ed’s bombasitic remarks, like, “They become arrogant and self-aggrandizing, attempting to glorify themselves by attacking others…” is ad hom. Dave, to help you out a bit, here is a definition of ad hom, “First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).” http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
    Please note Ed goes on to claim, “He cannot write a book himself that anyone wants to read, he cannot pastor a church anyone will attend”, as if that mattered one iota. Therefore Dave, Ed employed ad hom in his rebuttal against my person rather than dealing with the argument. That this went over your head isn’t surprising.

    So what do we have here, is that you once again got the arguments incorrect, seems to be a habit of yours and you have a difficult time comprehending definitions. Perhaps that is why you’ve revisited the site twice after having said your goodbyes. Maybe the issue with you is that you need to slow down and thoroughly digest what it is you are reading. However, as long as you keep this up, all you will get is egg on your face.

    • Paul wrote:I quoted Ed

      My response: No, you quoted Ed quoting me. My original message is eight messages before Ed’s message.

      Paul wrote:Ed’s bombasitic remarks, like, “They become arrogant and self-aggrandizing, attempting to glorify themselves by attacking others…” is ad hom.”

      My response: No Paul, that’s not ad hominem. Criticizing someone’s character is not ad hominem.

      Paul wrote:Dave, to help you out a bit, here is a definition of ad hom, “First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”

      My response: Did you even read your definition of ad hominem, Paul? It doesn’t describe what Ed wrote. He didn’t say:

      “Paul is arrogant and self-aggrandizing, and he attempts to glorify himself by attacking others. Therefore we can safely say that he is wrong in his futurist arguments.”

      THAT’S the logical fallacy of ad hominem, Paul. That wasn’t Ed’s argument. Nor was he offering a “rebuttal” of anything you said. He was venting his disgust over your unrighteous behavior (your lies, your false witness, etc.). Paul, publicly exposing your bad character and calling all believers to soundly reject your ungodly methods is nowhere near ad hominem, or any other logical fallacy. It’s just the right thing to do.

      Dave 🙂

  29. Dave writes,

    Paul wrote: “I quoted Ed”
    My response: No, you quoted Ed quoting me. My original message is eight messages before Ed’s message.

    You mean I attributed to one author the argument of another? After reviewing the postings you may be correct, so I will man-up and admit I made a mistake, although I guess I could suggest, yeah but that was Ed’s point anyway. Nah, I will man-up and do the correct thing, sorry Ed, although I’m sure you can understand the confusion based on your poor formatting.

    Now, folks, I wonder if all those who’ve been shown to be attributing the arguments of one author as that of another’s will fess up?

    Dave continues,

    Paul wrote: “Ed’s bombasitic remarks, like, “They become arrogant and self-aggrandizing, attempting to glorify themselves by attacking others…” is ad hom.”
    My response: No Paul, that’s not ad hominem. Criticizing someone’s character is not ad hominem.
    Paul wrote: “Dave, to help you out a bit, here is a definition of ad hom, “First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).”
    My response: Did you even read your definition of ad hominem, Paul? It doesn’t describe what Ed wrote. He didn’t say:
    “Paul is arrogant and self-aggrandizing, and he attempts to glorify himself by attacking others. Therefore we can safely say that he is wrong in his futurist arguments.”
    THAT’S the logical fallacy of ad hominem, Paul. That wasn’t Ed’s argument. Nor was he offering a “rebuttal” of anything you said. He was venting his disgust over your unrighteous behavior (your lies, your false witness, etc.). Paul, publicly exposing your bad character and calling all believers to soundly reject your ungodly methods is nowhere near ad hominem, or any other logical fallacy. It’s just the right thing to do.

    Dave, get serious, Ed entered the discussion here claiming I can’t get the “truth straight” all in an effort to undermine my points regarding your intellectual dishonesty in dealing with Sharon and her argument. This came on the heels of me pointing out you had once again fraudulently represented an exchange. The foundation for Ed’s claim was nothing but a personal attack. The entire basis for calling into question my arguments is based solely on an unsupported opinion as to my persons, suggesting I lied, when in fact I haven’t. That is Ad Hominem as defined by the definition.

    • Paul wrote:Ed entered the discussion here claiming I can’t get the “truth straight” all in an effort to undermine my points. . . . The entire basis for calling into question my arguments is based solely on an unsupported opinion as to my persons. . . . That is Ad Hominem as defined by the definition.”

      My response:

      Your reasoning is invalid in so many ways. It’s not only based on motive-assignment/assumption, it’s just plain narcissistic.

      Paraphrase of Paul’s argument: “Hey everybody! We know that Ed Hassertt’s argument about me (i.e., his condemnation of my behavior) is fallacious (i.e., ad hominem) because he has evil motives in his heart (i.e., he’s just trying to undermine the truth of my arguments).”

      Well irony of ironies. Guess what? THAT’S ad hominem, Paul! It’s a text book example of the fallacy. You, Paul, are guilty (quite frequently, actually) of the very fallacy that you continually try to pin on those who dare to reprove you for your sin.

      Dave

  30. Dave writes,

    “My response: I freely, openly and officially admit:

    “The only difference between this ‘hyper-preterist’ understanding of justification and the understanding of many Reformed men (such as Ridderbos) is that we put the eschatological consummation of justification in the past.””

    This isn’t accurate, because the reformers held when Justification is fulfilled quantitatively as opposed to what the Christian has now qualitatively the Christian will then be free from sin, glorified. For Green to hold the position of the Reformers his position would require him to claim he is glorified without sin at this present time and we know, based on his posts here that is far from the case. Green’s position isn’t anything like this as defined by Dr. Anthony Hoekema.

    The right to eternal life, therefore, which has been merited for us by Christ and bestowed on us in our justification, like the blessing of being adopted as children of God points both to the present and to the future. Qualitatively, we posses eternal life here and now, as we know God in his marvelous grace and experience rich fellowship with him in trust and in service, in prayer and in praise. But we possess it now only as the firstfruits of a greater harvest to come. After the resurrection of the body we shall enjoy eternal life in all its fullness. Then faith will change to sight, death and sorrow will be forgotten, and we will have reached the state of perfect knowledge of God, perfect enjoyment of God, and perfect service of God. And that state, praise God, will never end! (by Grace, Anthony A. Hoekema, Eerdmanns, pg 188)

    Green isn’t contrasting his view of justification with that of the reformers from in an intellectually honest manner, that is unless he claims he never sins and has perfect knowledge of God.

  31. Dave responds,

    “Paul wrote: “Ed entered the discussion here claiming I can’t get the “truth straight” all in an effort to undermine my points. . . . The entire basis for calling into question my arguments is based solely on an unsupported opinion as to my persons. . . . That is Ad Hominem as defined by the definition.”
    My response:

    Your reasoning is invalid in so many ways. It’s not only based on motive-assignment/assumption, it’s just plain narcissistic.
    Paraphrase of Paul’s argument: “Hey everybody! We know that Ed Hassertt’s argument about me (i.e., his condemnation of my behavior) is fallacious (i.e., ad hominem) because he has evil motives in his heart (i.e., he’s just trying to undermine the truth of my arguments).”
    Well irony of ironies. Guess what? THAT’S ad hominem, Paul! It’s a text book example of the fallacy. You, Paul, are guilty (quite frequently, actually) of the very fallacy that you continually try to pin on those who dare to reprove you for your sin.”

    Well at least this time you were honest enough to include the term “paraphrase” which evidently you somehow think rehabilitated your position. Gee, go figure, Ed writes, “Paul cannot seem to get the truth straight, exactly why the scriptures tell us novices should not teach!” which according to you turns into a narcissistic motive assignment. Although I simply pointed out Ed without warrant was personally attacking me on the heels of me pointing out your intellectual dishonesty? Green, that you can write the above isn’t surprising, after all you claim the only difference between your position and that of a reformed point of view regarding the doctrine of justification is simply over timing.

    The only irony here is that you think you’ve made your case. For example, you claimed I provided a “false witness” against you after pointing out your word was not worth sand due to your continued engagement here after indicating you were withdrawing from this conversation twice. (Clearly a behavioral defect of yours) I point out in detail how your accusation was false and indeed you had indicated you were going to withdraw twice. Rather than you admitting your fallacious accusation Ed inserts himself in the conversation attempting to provide cover by attacking my person without warrant, and you claim I’m guilty of committing a logical fallacy, go figure. The fact of the matter this is just another example of your delusional tendencies. You can’t carry the argument so you “paraphrase” (generously put) in an effort to rehabilitate an invalid point you had previously offered. There was nothing “fallacious” in me pointing out Ed’s accusations were false, he didn’t substantiate anything. Nor did I assign any intention to his heart, other that to point out on the heels of redressing your logical fallacy Ed made an unsupported attack against my persons with the intention of calling into question my ability to discern the “truth”.

    The real irony here is that you can appeal to Christian ethics while attempting to cover your tracks like you do. Indeed Hamlet had you in mind, but please don’t cease the engagement. Every time you post it provides more information regarding your tactics for the reading public to observe. Please, keep it coming.

    • Paul the serial false witness wrote:Well at least this time you were honest enough to include the term ‘paraphrase'”. . . . ”

      My response: Yet again, you bear false witness against me, Paul. “At least this time”? As though I previously paraphrased you and tried to pass it off as a direct quote.

      Paul the serial false witness wrote: “. . . you claimed I provided a ‘false witness’ against you after pointing out your word was not worth sand due to your continued engagement here after indicating you were withdrawing from this conversation twice.”

      My response: Yet again, you bear false witness against me, Paul.

      First I said, “I’m about to give up interacting with you guys. . . . ”

      Then I said, “I think I’m finished discussing this here.”

      Those aren’t good-byes, Paul. Those are “I’m about to” and “I think I’m.”

      THEN I said good-bye and permanently stopped discussing Sharon’s article here.

      Then you immediately bore false witness against me, saying, “How many times does one need to say goodbye,” insinuating that I broke my word.

      Obviously, Paul, I withdrew from discussing Sharon’s article only once. Yet you insinuated I withdrew from the discussion more than once and failed to keep my word. That’s FALSE WITNESS, Paul.

      What is it with you and bearing false witness? Do you hate God’s commandments? Or do you simply think the end (defeating “hyper-preterism”) justifies the means (bearing false witness against “hyper-preterists”)?

      Dave

    • Paul wrote:Ed writes, Paul cannot seem to get the truth straight, exactly why the scriptures tell us novices should not teach! which according to you turns into a narcissistic motive assignment.”

      My response: Again you bear false witness against me, Paul. As if I said that Ed’s words somehow (?) turned into a narcissistic motive assignment. (??) Even your false accusations are non sequiturs.

      Paul wrote: ” . . . Ed without warrant was personally attacking me. . . . ”

      My response: Your continual false witness is more than sufficient “warrant” to attack your bad character, Paul.

      Paul wrote:There was nothing ‘fallacious’ in me pointing out Ed’s accusations were false.”

      My response: Again you bear false witness against me, Paul. As if I said that it was a logical fallacy for you to say that Ed’s accusations were false.

      Paul wrote:Nor did I assign any intention to his heart, other than . . . the intention of calling into question my ability to discern the ‘truth.‘”

      My response: The intention that you assumed and assigned to Ed’s heart was that he criticized your character because he was trying to undermine your points and call your arguments into question. It never occurred to you that his motive in attacking your character was actually to rebuke you because you are demonstrating bad character. Hello?

      You assigned an evil motive to Ed and made that evil motive an unspoken element of his criticism of you, and thereby turned his criticism into the “ad hominem” fallacy. Do you have ANY ethics? If someone criticizes you but doesn’t actually commit a logical fallacy, you feel at liberty to insert an unspoken proposition into the criticizer’s argument, based solely on your intuitive knowledge of his motive, and then use that assumed motive as the basis for disqualify his criticism of you. Your method is pure ad hominem, Paul. It’s pure narcissism and childish arrogance. It’s sick.

      Also, Ed wasn’t calling into question your ability to discern the truth. THERE IS NO QUESTION that you can’t get the truth straight and that you sling mud and lies on websites. Those are givens.

      Dave

  32. Green, while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “Paul wrote: “Ed writes, Paul cannot seem to get the truth straight, exactly why the scriptures tell us novices should not teach! which according to you turns into a narcissistic motive assignment.”
    My response: Again you bear false witness against me, Paul. As if I said that Ed’s words somehow (?) turned into a narcissistic motive assignment. (??) Even your false accusations are non sequiturs.”

    Your claim is without basis as I’ve demonstrated. I didn’t claim you stated Ed’s statement was “narcissistic motive assignment”, you claimed me pointing out Ed unwarranted rant supporting your intellectual dishonesty was.

    Green while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “Paul wrote: ” . . . Ed without warrant was personally attacking me. . . . ”
    My response: Your continual false witness is more than sufficient “warrant” to attack your bad character, Paul.”

    Your claim is without basis as I’ve already demonstrated,

    Green while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “Paul wrote: “There was nothing ‘fallacious’ in me pointing out Ed’s accusations were false.”
    My response: Again you bear false witness against me, Paul. As if I said that it was a logical fallacy for you to say that Ed’s accusations were false”.

    Pointing out Ed accusations were without basis is bearing false witness against you? What are you Ed in disguise? And no it isn’t a logical fallacy for me to point out Ed’s accusations were without basis, he didn’t substantiate them.

    Phil, you may want to check this out, Ed may be posting under Green’s id.

    Green while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “Paul wrote: “Nor did I assign any intention to his heart, other than . . . the intention of calling into question my ability to discern the ‘truth.‘”
    My response: The intention that you assumed and assigned to Ed’s heart was that he criticized your character because he was trying to undermine your points and call your arguments into question. It never occurred to you that his motive in attacking your character was actually to rebuke you because you are demonstrating bad character. Hello?”

    Pointing out Ed made an unsubstantiated accusation against my person is assigning motivation to his heart? How does one spell delusional? No it never occurred to me my behavior was or is bad as all I did was demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty which clearly has gotten under your skin. Nevertheless, your opinion doesn’t mean much and is certainly no warrant for Ed to make unsubstantiated claims.

    Green while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “You assigned an evil motive to Ed and made that evil motive an unspoken element of his criticism of you, and thereby turned his criticism into the “ad hominem” fallacy. Do you have ANY ethics? If someone criticizes you but doesn’t actually commit a logical fallacy, you feel at liberty to insert an unspoken proposition into the criticizer’s argument, based solely on your intuitive knowledge of his motive, and then use that assumed motive as the basis for disqualify his criticism of you. Your method is pure ad hominem, Paul. It’s pure narcissism and childish arrogance. It’s sick.”

    This is a classic, this guy vomits all over this web-site, falesly accuses Sharon, and me as well as committing intellectual dishonesty on a regular basis then has the nerve to inquire if the one who exposed his intellectual dishonesty has ethics. You owe a bunch of people an apology.

    The fact is, I pointed out the record. Ed falsely accused me without supporting evidence on the heels of me demonstrating your intellectual dishonesty. Let’s not get into methods, we can all see yours.

    Green while claiming he was exiting this discussion several posts back nevertheless continues,

    “Also, Ed wasn’t calling into question your ability to discern the truth. THERE IS NO QUESTION that you can’t get the truth straight and that you sling mud and lies on websites. Those are givens.”
    Dave”

    ROFL, I look forward to your next post in contradiction to your prior claims.

  33. Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “Paul the serial false witness wrote: “Well at least this time you were honest enough to include the term ‘paraphrase’”. . . . ”
    My response: Yet again, you bear false witness against me, Paul. “At least this time”? As though I previously paraphrased you and tried to pass it off as a direct quote.”

    ROFL, how do you know I was referring to a paraphrase of one of my quotes? Green once again opens mouth and inserts foot especially in light of Sharon’s documentation of him crediting to one author the argument of another.

    Clearly the argument has gotten to Green.

    Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “Paul the serial false witness wrote: “. . . you claimed I provided a ‘false witness’ against you after pointing out your word was not worth sand due to your continued engagement here after indicating you were withdrawing from this conversation twice.”
    My response: Yet again, you bear false witness against me, Paul.
    First I said, “I’m about to give up interacting with you guys. . . . ”

    Green concedes his 1st claim to exit the discussion several posts back,

    Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “Then I said, “I think I’m finished discussing this here.”

    Green concedes his 2nd claim to exit the discussion several posts back,

    Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “Those aren’t good-byes, Paul. Those are “I’m about to” and “I think I’m.”
    THEN I said good-bye and permanently stopped discussing Sharon’s article here.
    Then you immediately bore false witness against me, saying, “How many times does one need to say goodbye,” insinuating that I broke my word.”

    ROFL, how many ways can one say “goodbye” yet after conceding he indicated he was leaving 3 times no less accuses me of “false witness”. Once again, how do you spell Delusional, clearly, GREEN.

    Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “Obviously, Paul, I withdrew from discussing Sharon’s article only once. Yet you insinuated I withdrew from the discussion more than once and failed to keep my word. That’s FALSE WITNESS, Paul.”

    Green stops short of conceding he wrote “goodbye” while attempting to save face now back-peddles claiming he never indicated he would be withdrawing from the discussion prior to saying goodbye although he has already conceded he had, yet I’m bearing false witness.

    Green who claimed several posts back he was exiting the discussion continues,

    “What is it with you and bearing false witness? Do you hate God’s commandments? Or do you simply think the end (defeating “hyper-preterism”) justifies the means (bearing false witness against “hyper-preterists”)?
    Dave”

    ROFL, you concede yet I’m bearing false witness. No, it is holding people accountable for what they actually indicate. You do have a set, one wonders how you look yourself in the mirror. BTW, with authors like you representing the view, it would appear the view is already defeated.

  34. Phil,

    Maybe Green actually did say goodbye this time, he doesn’t seem interested in answering your questions.

    ROFL,

  35. Dave wrote:

    EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: I said that Charles Hill believes that the early Christians had poor mental capabilities, and that they had no light in them.

    Dave also wrote:

    Let’s summaries what Hill is saying there:

    “If ‘fulfilled eschatology’ is true, then . . . truly, ‘there is no light in [the early church].’”

    That was Hill’s argument. He could not have made it any clearer. How anyone can deny that Hill made that argument is baffling.

    And Dave wrote:

    EX-PRET MISREPRESENTATION: Sharon said that I repeatedly equivocate. But of course, she could not provide even one example of me equivocating.

    In your own words Dave. What more needs to be said.

    Sharon

  36. I wrote: “You said you had already answered my five questions on PretCosmos. You didn’t. (and you still haven’t answered them) You lied.”

    Sharon responded:Dave, that is a bunch of bunk. . . . I never claimed to have answered them. . . . Your accusation that I lied is just plain wrong Dave.”

    My response: You posted on February 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm, here at Theology Today (see your message above):

    ” . . . please stop saying I haven’t answered your queries on the subject. I did on your Yahoo group before you brought it over here, and now I’ve explained in greater depth here at Phil’s blog.”

    That was a lie, Sharon –a double lie in fact. You never answered my five queries on my Yahoo Group (PretCosmos) and you never answered them here at Phil’s blog either.

    You lied.

    Dave

    • Hi Dave,

      Yes, I did answer your “queries” on PretCosmos. I explained my paragraph and answered your initial questions about it. You wouldn’t accept my clarification of what I said, insisting I meant something else and that is when I told you I wasn’t going to argue about it. That you could think what you wanted. So no, I never once said I was going to answer your list of questions. Never. So you can quit telling me I lied. I did not lie, no matter how you want to twist it all around.

      Sharon

  37. Sharon wrote:Your argument of Dr. Hill’s premise is wrong. . . .

    My response: Sharon, I don’t know what is going on with you –stress or depression or what. I sincerely suggest that you take a break from all of this for a while.

    Dave

Comments are closed.