Archive for Heresy
Hyper-Preterism’s Resurrection Error
The doctrines of Hyper-Preterism teach that Jesus Christ’s second advent happened in A.D. 70, at the fall of Herod’s temple, and that the resurrection of believers – indeed, of all men – happened at that time. In order to bolster their strange theory, H.P.’s spiritualize every eschatological passage that speaks of resurrection. They also employ a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which narrows down all eschatological fulfillment to the first century.
Whence did this doctrine arise? Hyper-Preterism was first invented by 19th century liberals and academics, who not seldom wedded the doctrine of “past fulfillment” to a universalistic soteriology. It is basically an ultra-intellectualized form of Christianity, which seeks to give the natural man a sound basis for dismissing the supernatural elements of Scripture, relegating predictive prophecy to historical events that are now past.
What Hyper-Preterism does to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is simply deplorable. H.P.’s cannot deny that death passed upon all men through Adam’s transgression (Romans 5: 12). But because they see that it is God’s ultimate purpose to abolish death (which didn’t happen in A.D. 70), they change the nature of Adamic death to mean a mere “separation from God.” According to them, it was this spiritual separation that was cast into the lake of fire in A.D. 70!
The Hyper-Preterist theory means, of course, that when Christ died on the cross, He did not pay the penalty for Adam’s transgression. Some Hyper-Preterists are so bold as to say that the cross was merely a “sign.” That is, the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary has no objective efficacy in the work of savlation. It was not Christ’s physical death that provided atonement, but His spiritual separation from God. A more heretical concept we can scarcely imagine.
In answering the Hyper-Preterist, I think it is needful to say that Christ did exactly what was needed of Him to pay the sin-debt – no more, no less. His physical death on the cross defines Adamic death. In fact, if death is not physical in nature, then the physical death and resurrection of Christ have no theological or redemptive significance whatever.
Paul writes: “For the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6: 23).
Remember, it was because Christ was “without sin” that He arose from the dead, becoming the “firstfruits” of them that slept (1 Cor. 15: 20). According to the law, a firstfruits always ensures a future harvest – of the same kind and nature. Christ was physically resurrected along with many saints, as presentation of the firstfruits sheaf (Matt. 27: 52-53). The resurrection of the firstfruits saints demonstrates that Christ has the keys of hell and of death. He used them when He raised that glorious company.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul leaves no doubt that the resurrection harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia. He also says: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Since Christ’s physical death is substitutionary in nature, there is no reason why Christians must die! Redemption is not merely a negative blessing, but a positive one. Although we shall not all die, we shall all be resurrected. The Scriptures teach us that are to await the Lord’s coming (1 Thessalonians 1: 10); knowing that He Who rose as firstfruits will also return to gather the ripened grain into His barn.
Eschatology is not as difficult a matter as Hyper-Preterists suppose. As always, however, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2: 14). Let us not be so foolish as those Athenians, who mocked when they heard the Biblical doctrine of resurrection (Acts 17: 32). But let us acknowledge His power toward usward who believe, as we wait in simplicity and patience for His blessed return.
T.W. Medhurst — Is Romanism Christianity?
(from The Fundamentals, 1909-1917)
The canons of the Council of Trent, which sat at intervals from 1545 to 1563, may be called the Bible of Romanism. They were translated into English, as late as 1848, by a Roman Catholic, priest, under the sanction of Dr. Wiseman. The Council tells us that one end for which it was called was “the extirpation of heresies.” What, then, according to it, is the standard of truth? It tells us that Rome receives The Sacred Scriptures and “The Unwritten Traditions…..preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church, with equal affection of piety and reverence” (Session 4) ; also that “no one may dare to interpret the Sacred Scriptures” in a manner contrary to that “Church; whose it is to judge respecting the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures;” nor may any one interpret them “in a manner contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers” (Session 4).
Christ commands us to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5: 21) to “search the Scriptures” (John 5: 39) ; to ascertain for ourselves, as the Bereans did, whether what we hear agrees with what we read in Scripture (Acts 17: 11). He commands us to “hold fast the form of sound words,” uttered by Himself and His Apostles (2 Tim. 1: 13) ; to “contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). But Rome says, “Let no one dare to do so – let all “Christian princes….. cause [men] to observe” our decrees (Session 16), nor “permit” them to be “violated by heretics” (Session 25).
The Romanist must not dare to have an opinion of his own; his mind must exist in the state of utter prostration and bondage; he must not attempt to understand the Scripture himself. And if others attempt it — if they dare to receive the teaching and do the will of Christ, instead of receiving fictions and obeying commands of men, which wholly subvert and destroy the truth and will of Jesus, Rome commands the civil ruler to restrain them; and, by the use of fines, imprisonment, and death, to compel them, if possible, to renounce what God requires them to maintain and follow, even unto death.
The Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible, is the standard and the rule of Christianity. To know its meaning for ourselves, to receive its teaching, to rely on its promises, to trust in its Redeemer, to obey Him from delight of love, and to refuse to follow other teaching, is Christianity itself. But Romanism denies all this; and therefore, Romanism is not Christianity.
Jesus Christ Refutes Hyper-Preterism
“Behold my hands and My feet, that it is I myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have… And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them” (Luke 24: 39, 42, 43).
This scene took place on the evening of Christ’s resurrection. Our Lord had been raised since early morning, but we do not have a full record of what He did or where He went that day. A few hours earlier, though, He had appeared to two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus, and had sat down to meat with them when they arrived at the village. Then He disappeared (see Luke 24: 13-31).
Just that morning, He had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, “For,” said He, ”I am not yet ascended to My Father” (John 20: 17). When He appeared to the eleven at evening, however, He gave them permission to handle Him, that they might see that He was no spirit, but truly flesh and bone (cf. 1 John 1: 1). This proves that sometime between morning and evening, Christ had ascended into heaven in His physical body.
While some Christians may scoff at the idea of there being more than one ascension, he/she need only compare the two accounts which Luke gives in Luke 24: 50-51 and Acts 1: 9-11, and they’ll see that two different ascensions are mentioned. The ascension recorded in Luke happened on the evening of the resurrection; whereas that recorded in Acts occurred after a period of 40 days of instruction concerning the kingdom (Acts 1: 3). Surely Luke was not making a “mistake” when he wrote of more than one ascension.
For all we know, Christ may have ascended and descended many times prior to His final taking up in Acts 1: 9. The fact that on the evening of the resurrection He told His disciples to touch Him, indicates that He had ascended at least once prior to His appearance to the eleven. But since He appeared in His physical body, it is equally clear that He must have ascended in His own body!
Take the argument a step further. How did Christ ascend in Acts 1: 9? If Christ had previously went to heaven in His own body, then there was no need for Him to divest Himself of His humanity in Acts 1: 9. And remember what the angels said:
“Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, Which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1: 11).
Ouch! The Hyper-Preterist has no refuge, except to create a non-Biblical ascension, which I’ve already showed lacks Scriptural precedence. True, Paul said that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incoruption” (1 Cor. 15: 50). But Hyper-Preterists forget that Christ didn’t say: “Behold, I am flesh and blood.” He said: “Behold, I am FLESH and BONE.” There is a difference!
Also, after Christ rose from the dead, He was no longer subject to corruption.
“For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16: 10)
“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him” (Romans 6: 9).
Therefore, from Christ’s appearance in His physical body AFTER an ascension into heaven, we may infer that He physically ascended into heaven when He sat down on the right hand of God. And that proves that Christ will return in His physical body.
Hyper-Preterism stands refuted!
Hymeneus And Philetus
In Paul’s second letter written to Timothy (written about A.D. 68), the apostle makes reference to two individuals – Hymeneus and Philetus – who were making shipwreck of the Christian faith, by preaching that the resurrection had already happened (2 Tim. 2: 17). The preceding context informs us that their doctrine may have arisen from failure to ”rightly divide the word of truth” (see 2 Tim. 2: 15-16).
Thankfully, Paul condemned the teachings of Hymeneus and Philetus in the strongest terms, sounding out a warning to those who in after years would depart from vital truth concerning the resurrection. Regardless of his warnings, however, the same teaching is held today by men who say that the second coming is a past event. Their doctrine is known as “Hyper-Preterism.”
What did Hymeneus and Philetus actually teach? If we can reconstruct, even in a general fashion, the doctrine they delivered, we may help readers to understand why the two men were condemned so strongly by Paul. This will help us to fix our exegetical anchors in the Word of Truth, so that when we deal with the subject of the resurrection we will not be led into error as they were.
I suppose that Hymeneus and Philetus had been with Paul long enough to know – in outline, at least — what he taught regarding the resurrection. It is certain that they must have known one predominant fact: that the resurrection would only occur at the parousia of Christ.
(1 Corinthians 15: 23) “But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward, they that are Christ’s at His parousia.”
Of course, Christ had told Peter, James, John, and Andrew that the parousia (translated “coming” in Matthew 24: 3) would occur immediately after the Great Tribulation, and be preceded by signs in the heavens, which could not be missed (see Matthew 24: 29-30).
The sign of the “telos” (i.e., last half of Daniel’s 70th week) was to be the setting up of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in the holy place of the temple (Matt. 24: 15; cf. Dan. 9: 27; 11: 31; 12: 11). Every Jew having knowledge of Christ’s words would have been on the lookout for a fulfillment of the events prophesied in Daniel 11: 31-45; for it was “at that time” that Michael would stand up for the children of Israel, and the Great Tribulation would commence (see Dan. 12: 1-2). This would bring about the refinement, purging, and eventual restoration of the covenant nation (Isaiah 48: 10-11; Jeremiah 30: 7; Ezekiel 20: 33-43; 22: 17-22; Malachi 3: 3-4).
Even with these facts in mind, though, we are not sure whether Hymeneus and Philetus ever had access to the three synoptic Gospels. It is likely that the two men had only heard Paul’s teachings of grace and reconciliation. If they had read the Olivet Discourse, however, or heard it orally recited, they must have spiritualized the parousia in the same manner that modern day Hyper-Preterists do. Unfortunately, that is something which we are unable to confirm.
Nevertheless, one thing is certain. Hymeneus and Philetus could not have missed the fact that the resurrection would take place at Christ’s second advent. Therefore, by relegating the resurrection to past-fulfillment, they must have also viewed the second coming as a past event. From this it is obvious that Hymeneus and Philetus were the very first Hyper-Preterists.
How could these two men, instructed by the great apostle Paul, have ever been so foolish as to say that the second coming of Christ, and resurrection of believers, had already happened? Being Gentiles, they may have been strongly tinged with heathen philosophy. The pagan concepts of life after death, and the immortality of the soul, may have led them to see the resurrection as something attainable apart from any physical return of Christ.
But there is a better answer, I believe. If they had been with Paul prior to his imprisonment at Rome (and it likely that they had heard his teachings when Paul ministered the Gospel during his two-year stay at Ephesus), then they might have noticed the difference between Paul’s teachings before and after the Acts 28 council, when the Jewish leaders of the Dispersion formally rejected the offer of the kingdom. This was a dispensational crisis, for it marked the period when the Jews as a nation lost their religious priority over the Gentiles.
In Paul’s prison epistles written after Act 28, the parousia, which had been so prominent in his earlier teachings, is nowhere alluded to. True, we have the “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13), as well as the teaching concerning our Lord’s ”epiphaneia.” Yet are the two the same? To one ignorant of the truth concerning the “Dispensation of the Mystery” (Eph. 3: 9), it may seem strange that in the later Pauline epistles, the apocalyptic character of our Lord’s second coming is nowhere to be seen. The word “apocalupsis” is not even found in Paul’s seven epistles written after Acts 28 (except in Eph. 1: 17 & 3: 3, where it bears no relation to the coming of Christ).
Then there is a lack of teaching concerning the ordinances. The administering of baptism and the Lord’s supper are not referred to in Paul’s later epistles. While the verb “to baptize“ appears 12 times in the letters written to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, no mention is made of it in Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Titus, and 1 & 2 Timothy. A similar silence is noticed in regard to the keeping of the Lord’s supper. While the earlier epistles contain some 15 references to the loaf and the cup, not a single reference can be found in Paul’s epistles written after the Acts 28 conference.
Then, too, in the earlier epistles we read about prophesying, as well as “tongues” and gifts of healing. In the later writings, no mention is made of prophesying and tongues, nor is there any indication that Paul’s healing gifts were in operation when he penned his second epistle to Timothy (see Phil. 2: 26; 1 Tim. 5: 23; 2 Tim. 4: 20). This silence concerning so many elements connected with the once-impending “Day of the Lord,” certainly may have led led Hymeneus and Philetus to conclude that Christ had already returned “spiritually.” And because Paul taught no such doctrine, their teaching was likened to a canker that would eat away at the faith of the apostolic churches.
And that is precisely what happened. There is evidence in Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, that most of his hearers had departed from the faith concerning the administration of the mystery.
(2 Timothy 1: 15) “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.”
This departure from sound doctrine would have made it very easy for men like Hymeneus and Philetus to promulgate their false doctrine concerning a past second coming of Christ. After all, even if their teachings had received opposition, couldn’t they have quoted from Paul’s earlier writings to show that perhaps the apostle was wrong?
Around A.D. 57-58, Paul had stressed the imminence of the parousia of Christ. The Corinthian church was urged to “come behind in no gift; waiting for the APOCALYPSE of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1: 7). Paul certainly included himself in this hope; even the hope of the resurrection, which would happen when Christ returned from heaven.
(1 Cor. 15: 51-52) “Behold, I show you a mystery; WE (Paul included) shall not all sleep, but WE shall all be changed; In a moment, in the twinkling of the eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and WE (Paul included) shall be changed.”
Notwithstanding the then-imminence of the second advent, and the fact that Paul expected to be among those who would be changed without dying, the apostle later expressed doubts as to whether he would attain to the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3: 11-12). This was in A.D. 62. And in his second epistle to Timothy (A.D. 68), he believed he would die before the coming of Christ took place (2 Timothy 4: 6-8).
How easy it would have been for Hymeneus and Philetus to take hold of Paul’s apparent contradictory statements, and to assert that the apostle was in error; that Christ had already returned, and the resurrection had taken place! All this because of ignorance concerning the dispensation of the mystery.
Because the mystery falls into the parenthetical period between Israel’s “rejection” (in Acts 28) and their ultimate ”renewal” (when the broken-off events of the Pentecostal period take up their course again), such false teachers as Hymeneus and Philetus did not see that the parousia had already been postponed in Acts 28. Because Paul no longer taught that the day of the Lord was “near“ or ”at hand,” they blindly concluded that it must have already happened. And so, (whether they knew it or not), the two men became the ”de facto” founders of the Hyper-Preterist heresy.
What Death Did Adam Die?
One of the distinctives of Hyper-Preterism is the teaching that death was completely destroyed in A.D. 70. Because there was no verifiable resurrection at that time, Hyper-Preterists claim that death is “spiritual” or “covenantal.” But Hyper-Preterists change the meaning of key texts, forcing the evidence to bolster their own position.
At a recent Hyper-Preterist conference in Nebraska, a fairly well-known speaker encouraged Hyper-Preterists in their views by assuring them that the death that Adam died was entirely spiritual. Such assurance is needed, for the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism are not found in the Bible!
When asked what death Adam died, I reply: the death of the entire man. Man is composed of soul and body, and so death has two dimensions. Adam died both spiritually and physically. And he died in the very day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Now, I can picture the Hyper-Preterist scratching his head, and saying: “No he didn’t!” After all, it is believed among Hyper-Preterists that because Adam didn’t physically die in the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, that death cannot be physical. Therefore it must be spiritual, or else covenantal.
Well, we know that Adam and Eve died spiritually when their eyes were opened, and they were ashamed (Genesis 3: 7). This caused them to hide from the presence of the Lord, and cover their nakedness with fig-leaf aprons. These historical facts have spiritual significance. For the guilty sinner knows that he is condemned; and yet, instead of seeking mercy from God, he covers his nakedness with his works.
Adam and Eve, however, are to be treated with some leniency for not fleeing to God immediately, for the message of the Gospel had not been given! But after it was given, and the promise made that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the serpent’s head (Genesis 3: 15), they were free to accept the mercy that was extended to them.
By some Bible students it is thought that the time of their hiding from God’s presence was three hours, corresponding to the three hours when the sun was darkened at our Lord’s crucifixion (see Matt. 27: 45). I believe that is the case. At any rate, it is clear that Adam and Eve suffered spiritual death the moment they ate of the forbidden fruit. So in that regard, the punishment was levied that day.
But what about physical death? How did they die the same day they ate of the fruit? The answer is quite simple, and involves the Gospel that was preached to them by God. In Genesis 3: 21 it is written: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
The answer: Adam and Eve died physically in the person of their substitute, a slain lamb. Remember, Christ is called “The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13: 8). The title has no significance unless it points back to that vicarious sacrifice which took place in Eden. Adam and Eve didn’t have to die physically themselves, because a slain animal died in their stead.
Isn’t this part and parcel of the “everlasting Gospel“? For there can be no “good news” without a shedding of blood. It is the blood that maketh atonement. (Leviticus 17: 11). Wherefore God, after preaching the Gospel to our first parents, ordained that an innocent lamb should be slain, that atonement might be made for their sin. And because their transgression was covered by the blood, they left the Garden without dying.
Notice, however, that Adam and his wife were then driven from Eden, and prevented from eating of the tree of life (Gen. 3: 22-24). The reason? “Lest he should eat, and live forever.” This tells us that if Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life, they would have lived forever! Lived how? Spiritually or physically? Obviously, in a physical sense, for Adam and Eve had already spiritually died, but were still alive physically. They needed the tree in order to sustain the life that they had. And because access to it was restricted, their physical death was made sure and certain.
Now, it is a fact that Adam died at 930 years of age (Gen. 5: 5). Thus, if we take a “day of the Lord” as equivalent to 1000 years (2 Peter 3: 8), we see that Adam died within the limits of the first day. Not the first creative day, but the first redemptive day. For sin made necessary Christ’s redemptive work, and a new week of 1000-year days was set into operation on the 24-hour day that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.
The seventh day is the redemptive Sabbath — otherwise known as the Millennium — to which the saints look forward. As Paul writes: “There remaineth therefore a sabbath-keeping (sabbatismos) to the people of God” (Hebrews 4: 9). This sabbath-keeping is associated with that “better resurrection,” in which the promises made to the Fathers shall be fulfilled. Until that resurrection occurs, death must continue. But only in a limited sense.
Our Savior’s purpose was to annul death in two distinct stages, corresponding to His two advents. The first advent took care of spiritual death. The second advent will take care of physical death.
At our Lord’s ascension, it is said that He led forth a multitude of captives (Eph. 4: 8). Who can these “captives” be, but those who were kept in Hades prior to Christ’s resurrection? These were removed from the Paradise compartment of the underworld, and carried back to heaven to be with Christ.
Hence Paul, entertaining thoughts of departure from this world, could look forward to ”being with Christ, which is far better” (Phil. 1: 23). And he could truthfully say that Christ “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel“ (2 Tim. 1: 10).
Spiritual resurrection takes place at the regeneration of the believer, when he is “quickened” by Christ (Eph. 2: 1, 5). This work was complete in A.D. 30, at our Lord’s exaltation to His Father’s throne in heaven. It did not require 40 years to be perfected. If the Bible represents first-century believers as being spiritually “alive,” then no man has a right to say that this life was incomplete. No. Spiritual death was annulled at the Cross.
What therefore remains to be annulled but physical death? This will occur at the Lord’s second advent, when the bodies of the saints will rise from the dust and be refashioned after the image of Christ. This resurrection is yet future. It was foreshadowed by Christ’s “first-fruits” resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 20, 23), and the raising of many saints from their graves (see Matt. 27: 52-53).
According to the law, the ”first-fruits“ demands a future harvest of the same nature and kind — not of something different. Because fulfillment of the first-fruits resurrection was physical in nature, the harvest will also be physical.
By denying the above evidence, Hyper-Preterists lay themselves open to charges of willful rejection of the Scriptures. Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of old, they have created their own religion in which they feel comfortable, and no amount of evidence can be presented to make them change their mind.
However, I trust it is clear to any honest and intelligent student of Scripture that the “death” brought upon the race by Adam includes physical death, which will one day be annulled at the glorious appearing of Jesus. “For our seat of government (politeuma) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself” (Phil. 3: 20-21). Maranatha!
Sola Scriptura and The Hyper-Preterist Dilemma
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.
How To Leave Hyper-Preterism (Without Losing Your Shirt)
Whenever I talk with Hyper-Preterists, I always wonder how anyone can be so blind as to believe that it took 2,000 years to discover the A-B-C’s of eschatology. Actually, I know the blindness is, in many cases, self-imposed. But it is sometimes possible for even the most confirmed advocate of “past fulfillment“ to drop Hyper-Preterism and return to the truths of the Gospel.
Mind, it is not the long time advocates of which I despair so much as the “confirmed newbies.” Someone who has been immersed in Hyper-Preterism for years and years will have seen that the system is riddled with fatal flaws. The newbies are still on their initial buzz, and haven’t gotten over the elation of having won a few debates.
The seasoned advocates know there is a problem. But in many cases, they’ve spent the best part of their lives endorsing error. So if they should leave, then where will they go? That is a big question which poses a bigger challenge. How does one leave Hyper-Preterism without losing his shirt?
The answer is painfully simple. You can’t go out naked. You have to exchange one shirt for another. Before you can leave Hyper-Preterism, you have to know where to go. If you don’t have another place prepared for you, then you won’t leave the one you’re in.
The difficulty is, that most Hyper-Preterists see their doctrine as an advancement over orthodox Christianity. Having not sufficiently studied what the other side has to say, they believe their theology marks the end of the road. I’ll agree that Hyper-Preterism is a terminus. But it is not a destination. It is a dead-end. In order to get back to the main drag you have to retrace your way.
You have to remember where you first veered off on your journey. If you can identify your first mistake, then you’ll know where to go back and take the other fork in the road.
Let me give you an example. My first mistake was to accept the allegorical method of interpretation. Having once accepted this, it was no obstacle for me to agree with such views as the Hyper-Preterists advocate. So, in leaving Hyper-Preterism, I naturally had to question my initial conclusions, and find a valid theological alternative. Thankfully, I found one in the “historical, grammatical, and contextual” method of interpretation. I also discovered that precious pearl of doctrine known as “Biblical Precedence.”
In order for confirmed Hyper-Preterists to leave their system, they have to have another option which is theologically viable. Unless we can give them this, we’ll be talking to a brick wall. Of course, presenting an alternative scenario will not always do the trick.
Having learned to look at texts in a certain way, the Hyper-Preterist will often ridicule your suggestions. We must be patient. A grave side-effect of the Hyper-Preterist heresy is destruction of evangelical faith. In certain advanced cases, the disease may be so ingrained that the person seems beyond recovery. But as nothing is impossible with God (Matt. 19: 26), we must continue to pray.
Then there is the issue of credibility and prestige. That is a major obstacle with many confirmed Hyper-Preterists. After all, if they admit they’re wrong, then their credibility will be compromised. Many cannot tolerate the humiliation that would come with an avowal that they were mistaken in their views.
But consider it this way. If 2,000 years of orthodox Christian teachers are fallible, then how much more the Hyper-Preterist? Are the clouds beginning to clear? If the answer is no, then keep thinking about it.
When all is said and done, the question will really be: is the Hyper-Preterist willing to exchange shirts? Either he is, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then there probably a number of “very good reasons” (note: Hyper-Preterists always have good reasons!), and little we say will make an impact.
But if you can find that one or two individuals who are willing to don the other shirt, then you’ll see that Hyper-Preterism is not irrecoverable. Just whatever you do, don’t forget to burn the old shirt!
