Those who have studied the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism in any depth will have often heard the statement that Hyper-Preterists rely on a “Sola Scriptura” mode of interpretion.  To the casual listener, their rabid rejection of 2,000 years of Christian teaching often convinces Christians that these folks are in fact following the example of the Reformers, who insisted that Scripture alone is the sole-sufficient guide to matters of Christian faith and practice.

   But because Hyper-Preterists reject the “historical, contextual, historical” method of interpretation, endorsing a pseudo-Gnostic hermeneutic, they render the Scriptures of none effect, — thus disabling the effectiveness of Sola Scriptura.  The Bible alone is useless if the student cannot understand what is being taught.

   Hyper-Preterists ignore the fact that in preaching something entirely new, and in direct opposition to anything held by Christians for the past 2,000 years, they make the Scriptures incomprehensible. 

   I mean, if it took 2,000 years for the church to understand the A-B-C’s of eschatology, then the implication is that Scripture is insufficient, because the Christian, even under the most favorable circumstances, will in likelihood not have the ability to understand God’s word.

   My position is that Sola Scriptura is valid only when the student holds a “grammatical, historical, contextual” hermeneutic.  Any other approach is self-destructive.  If the written Word does not contain a clear and unambiguous presentation of Christian truth, then Christians may as well throw their Bibles away, and embrace some other religion that knows what it is talking about. 

   If the words which the Holy Spirit chose to express the thoughts of God are not to be understood according to their plain and obvious sense (unless context indicates figurative or symbolic usage), then there is the end of all “absolutes” in matter of doctrine.  Scripture may be spiritualized in a hundred different directions to suit the views of each interpreter. 

   This is exactly what has been done throughout the history of the church.  The root of diversity in doctrine is not God failing to make His thoughts known.  God is not an obscurantist.  The root cause is man stubbornly refusing to listen to God. 

   Hyper-Preterists are not Sola Scriptura, because they defend their theology by changing the meaning of words, thus rendering Scripture of none effect with their traditions.  It doesn’t matter whether these traditions were minted in Alexandria, or in Dayton, Ohio.  It amounts to the same thing.  Man sits in judgment on God’s word, and uses the Word to buttress his own concept of what Christianity should be, rather than what it is.

  Mind, I am not saying that historical Christianity has no value.   As many know, I have often quoted church fathers and other historic teachers in my articles.  However, these teachings are valueless unless they uphold the integrity of God’s word. 

   For example, it is true that all the creeds and confessions speak of a future second coming of Christ.  But that doesn’t establish the futuricity of the second advent.  The doctrine is established by Scripture alone.  Historic Christianity merely vindicates the “historical, grammatical, contextual” mode of interpretation.    It proves that the Bible is so clear, that others got to the truth before we did.

   The Hyper-Preterist, however, in claiming that 2,000 years of Christian teachers had it all wrong, require us to believe that the Scriptures were not clear enough to be understood.  This negatively impacts one’s concept of God, forcing one to view Him as a heathen oracle, rather than a benign Father Who chooses to communicate with His children.

  The issue involving Hyper-Preterism and Sola Scriptura is not whether somebody can find Scriptural support for his/her doctrines.  It is whether or not the doctrines we teach honor the authority of God’s word.  This presupposes, above all things, Biblical perspicuity.   “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor. 13: 8).

   In the Old Testament, it is recorded that confusion comes when man neglects to hear God.  “But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken” (Isaiah 28: 13).  

   History has taught us that there are many ways a Christian may err.  But how much better is it to err on the side of simplicity, believing what God has said, than to prefer the ravings of men, who make philosophy and vain deceit a part of their trade?  (Col. 2: 8).

   As always, the battle is between Scripture and man’s tradition.  But it isn’t all tradition that is opposed to God.  It is only the tradition that makes God’s words of none effect (Mark 7: 9).  The tradition we are to follow is the inspired teachings laid down in the New Testament — plus nothing, minus nothing.  All else falls under condemnation.

   As it stands, Hyper-Preterists are deeply deluded.  Many of them really believe the Bible teaches their doctrine.  Impressionable as they are, they swallow the bait, and before you know it they are found substituting their own traditions for the authority of the written Word. 

   Regardless of their pretensions, however, Hyper-Preterists must eventually capitulate for their denial of the clarity of Scripture.  Let’s face it. If 2,000 years of Christian teachers had it wrong on the bare basics of eschatology, then why should Hyper-Preterists have it right?   The logical consequence of their main premise leaves “Sola Scriptura” without a leg to stand on.