Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Eccesiology Eschatology Soteriology Bibliology Christology Pneumatology
Hamartiology Hermeneutics History Apologetics Humor Website
 
Welcome to The Kingdom Come Where Christ is King!
Home » blogs » Roderick's blog

Opposition does not equal advocacy

Todd Dennis, long time proponent of "full preterism" (rightly called "hyper-preterism" because it goes beyond biblical definition) has begun a new blog site where he plans to work on refuting the teaching he had embraced for over 13 years.  This is significant because Dennis is credited with being perhaps the "founder" of the online expression of full preterism.  Other hyper-preterist sites that now enjoy prominence actually directly lifted materials from Dennis' work...often without even crediting him.

One thing that Dennis points out on the new site is very important to note. Opposition does not equal advocacy.  What he means by this is, that while there have been many people that oppose hyper-preterism, there needs to be a better job done in advocating the correct position. I agree & note that almost 200 years of dispensationalism & dispensationalist theology has made it easy for hyper-preterism to thrive.  Dispensationalism's answers are completely powerless against the errors of hyper-preterism.  However, there is also a pattern in Christian history that shows that solid doctrinal stances come in response to the occasional heresies that rear their heads.  This is true of the doctrine of the deity of Christ, of the Trinity, & even the so-called "five points of Calvinism".  All of these doctrines were in response to some heresy that had arisen.  Before the heresy came, it was understood in common that things such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, & the points outlined by the Canons of Dort were in fact the already accepted position.  The responses were only to solidify what was already believed.  In this same way, I believe the Church will ultimately respond to the heresy of hyper-preterism.

Although I may not agree with all of Dennis' "idealism", I do agree with much of what he has to say, not only about the errors of hyper-preterism but also the errors in how hyper-preterism has been dealt with.  Hyper-preterists have been pushing me to answer their questions...often insincere inquiries since they really have no intention on listening or considering anything I have to say to them.  Some are upset because I won't immediately answer their shotgun questioning with mere one line proof-texts.  But it was the one line proof-text approach of dispensationalism that drove many people to hyper-preterism.  I will not make the same mistake in refuting the error.  It will take considered & solid work to make a case against the errors of hyper-preterism so that the only people that continue to espouse it are those with "agendas".  I am confident by the time the combined efforts of the many former "full preterists" are done, that the honest men & women now within the clutches of hyper-preterism hype will come out of that "movement" & only leave behind the dishonest men & women who will not listen to anyone.

Brothers & sisters -- it is time to come back to the biblical, historical Jesus.  The biblical, historic Church.  The biblical, historic Faith.  It is time to come back to Christianity instead of embracing some "new kind of" lie posing as Christianity.

To read Todd Dennis' site, go to: http://www.hyperpreteristarchive.com

By Roderick on 2008 Apr 20 - 10:46 | Eschatology | Roderick's blog | add new comment | email this page | printer friendly version | 1275 reads

On Refuting Heresies

Roderick,

You've been echoing my own thoughts on some of these issues. As I've said many a time, any heresy can be easily refuted, but I think we need to approach it from an historical level. The reason is evident. Because heretics are not subject to the will of God, there's nothing we can give them out of God's word that will convince them. If we can only get others to acknowledge that the truth was not "lost" for 1,900 years, refutation will be an easy matter.

In every age, God has had confessors of the true faith. If we deny this, we deny our God. For since God is the perfect Father, He is also the perfect Provider. But if He failed to provide, He is not the perfect Father, therefore He is not God. I agree with your statement that the church must handle Hyper Preterism. But let us not forget that 1,900 years of orthodoxy has already effectively refuted it for us. Many of the doctrines held by these heretics have already been debunked and proven false by the ancient church. For instance, the resurrection of the body has been discussed voluminously, and we'd have plenty of material to our hand if only we'd study the ancient sources. Our main mistake comes when we begin to take these heretics seriously. Man, this is like sitting down at a war conference and letting the enemy choose his own terms. The one thing the enemy wants to do is get us to play chess with the Scriptures. Once we agree to this, 50% of the argument passes over to them. Anybody can "prove" anything out of the Scriptures. History has shown this time and time again. If the settlement of the Arian controversy had been left to a study of the Scriptures, the council would still be in session today.

No. The method we've been using is entirely wrong. While all of the great apologists made refutation of these heresies on an exegetical level, it was not so much to convict the adversary as to instruct and defend the church from their teachings. We cannot stand in our own strength and hope to convict heretics, for spiritual conviction must ultimately be a work of the Holy Spirit. However, we can certainly refute these heresies for the benefit of ourselves, which is what we ought to do. This is where a book would come in very a useful to our dilemma. If some of us were to get together and write a book refuting Hyper-Preterism, the impact would be far greater than simply arguing on a one-to-one basis with people who don't want to listen. I could easily whip out 50 pages on the resurrection, which would alone refute Hyper Preterism. If others agreed to make a similar effort we could then pool our resources and turn out an official "magnum opus" which would crush the movement forever.
Peace and Health,
Brian

By Brian Simmons (not verified) on April 21, 2008 - 09:16 | parent | reply