Occam’s Razor: The Fool-Proof Test Of True Christianity

    Readers of this blog will probably already know that I pay little or no attention to speculative theology.  The issues that seem so important to philosophical punditry are reckoned by myself as mere “impedimenta” which prevent Christians from attaining dogmatic positivism in matters of religion.  Since I have learned in my studies that the pathway to truth is usually the easiest and most well-traversed road, I naturally wax suspicious of any person who seeks to make Christian doctrine uncessarily complex or tortuous.  In many sectors of the professing church, speculative theorizing has become so ingrained that self-styled “gatekeepers” (the scribes and Pharisees of today) deem discipleship incomplete until one has taken a course in philosophy.  For they well know that philosophy is necessary in order to explain away the plain meaning of God’s word.  But we prefer to heed Paul’s warnings to beware of such spoilation (Colossians 2: 8).  And we are not alone in our concern.  Real Christians (and there are lots of them) generally resent any tampering with the meaning of Scripture; insomuch that they’ll clap their ears to anyone who systematically denies what Christ and His inspired apostles set down as an authoritative and uncompromising rule of faith.  Call it bull-headed bigotry if you will.  I thank God for it every day I live..

Hyperpreterist World – in it all together

Hyperworld

Well, it’s that time again.  Come along as we look into the wacky world of Hyperpreterists.  What person is trying to be the center of attention this week?  What are they fighting over? Who has compromised with whom just to keep the “movement” unified?

Up first is Mike Loomis, formerly known as “psychomike” (a name of his own choosing).  Loomis, like many hyperpreterists was either unemployed, underemployed or on disability/welfare (giving them lots of time to start websites).

Is Justification By Grace/Faith Alone A ‘New Doctrine?’

There has been argument by some Hyperpreterists that they are validated in purporting the HP doctrines, even if those doctrines are new; because these same people claim Luther and the Reformers were advocating new doctrines never before articulated in the Church.  Although these people don’t seem to understand that this reasoning DOESN’T help their case, it simply denigrates the Reformation and makes it as illegitimate as the HP new doctrine, they persist in finding otherwise respectable theologians that unwittingly make comments that seem to support the idea of justification by grace/faith alone being a new doctrine.

I have admitted that more needs to be done to show that justification by grace/faith alone is NOT a new doctrine and I plan to devote several years to it.  I can’t count on seminarians like Dr. Talbot to come forth because he is too busy trying to craft his own version of Preterism that he is calling “Realized Preterism” or getting his proxies to follow along.  Several people here have realized that Talbot is actually trying to have his cake and eat it too, by inventing a hybrid version of “Full Preterism”.

In Relativism We Trust?

    As the battle against Hyper-Preterism and other destructive heresies rages on, I’ve noticed myself becoming more and more absolute and dogmatic in my theology.  Sure, I may be called narrow-minded by many, even bigoted by some.  But I’ve come to realize that this tendency is really a wholesome reaction against relativism, the greatest enemy Christendom has ever encountered.  Relativism has been defined as “a theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute, but are relative to the persons or groups holding them” (source).  In a Christian environment, relativism is often manifested by an effeminate, limp-wristed tolerance of a multiplicity of views which are not always compatible with one another, but are allowed to co-exist for the sake of “peace.”  Relativistic Christians generally downplay the importance of doctrines like the atonement, the resurrection of the body, and the second advent of Christ, for fear of “rocking the boat” and offending someone whose views may not even be Christian at all.  Relativists may also claim that we can never really know anything for certain until we die and go to heaven.  But while relativism may seem innocuous to the average Sunday churchgoer, its practical tendency is to erode the parameters of orthodoxy so that truth and error stand on the same footing.  This makes it easy for heresies to gain credence in a Christian setting..

Hyperpreterist Buffet: A little here and a little there

Tsau latsau, kau lakau

One of the main arguments surrounding Hyperpreterism is the FACT that it can’t be shown to be taught in the history of Christianity prior to the late 18oo’s and specifically in 1971 with Max King.  Hyperpreterists have made various attempts to answer this issue, for example Hyperpreterist teacher, Edward Stevens posits there was a 1st-century rapture that removed all of the “first-rank” Christians leaving only so-called “second-rank” Christians to build the post-AD70 Church and therefore Stevens concludes that it should be no wonder that for 2000 years Christianity has taught nothing such as Hyperpreterism.  Stevens’ contention is that the second-rank “Left-Behind” Christians didn’t really understand what happened in AD70 and therefore initiated the supposedly erroneous eschatological view that UNITED Christianity has espoused for 2000 years (source).

Other attempts by Hyperpreterists to reconcile the issue have come in the form of advocating that “full preterism has always existed in trace form”.  Or yet another tries to justify Hyperpreterism “new doctrine” by claiming Martin Luther and the Reformers were advocating new doctrine with justification by faith alone; Hyperpreterists will even quote Reformed theologians who seem to agree that Luther was teaching something new.  Ultimately, the Hyperpreterist argument and overarching premise is that for whatever reason, God was either unable or unwilling to sustain a basic understanding of His eschatological plan among His community of saints; as if 2000 years of Christianity has been in gross error.  Most Hyperpreterists have no problem with this premise and don’t seem to understand that the consequences leave them and Christianity itself as bogus and doubtful.  I mean, if God hasn’t sustained truth, then why trust any doctrine we have within Christianity?  Why even trust that the Bible we have today is the Bible; since perhaps there are missing books or books added that God didn’t intend.  This notion of God having not sustained basic understanding within His collective new covenant community leaves us prepped to accept the next Muhammad, the next Joseph Smith Jr., the next Charles Taze Russell, the next Max King that comes claiming what Christians have always believed is in gross error and these men somehow figured out the truth.

Death Of Death In The Death Of Hyper-Preterism

     The glorious truth that Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross satisified the penalty of sin, which is physical death (Romans 6: 23), is a truth most hotly contested by Hyper-Preterists.  The H.P.’s reason that if these things are so, then there must be a future physical resurrection of the dead, else salvation would be incomplete.  Since Christ underwent death on our behalf, there is no need for Christians to die.  Therefore, we are to “expect” His second advent.  If we should fall asleep in Christ before He returns, we shall be physically raised from the dead; for this is a provision of the “everlasting covenant” (Acts 13: 34; cf. Isaiah 55: 3).  Due to their aversion to the basic Gospel, H.P.’s invent all kinds of weird ploys to get around these truths, even arguing that the “real man” does not include the body (see below for refutation).  When  it comes to the doctrine of the second advent, Hyper-Preterists spiritualize the plain language of Scripture, denying there will be any future physical return of Christ, since according to their minds Christ divested Himself of His body (the same body that bore our sins on the cross) when He ascended on high (source).  But is all this enough heresy for Hyper-Preterists?  No, not by a long shot!

Why The Truth Doesn’t Matter To Hyper-Preterists

     Although Hyper-Preterists will kick and scream against the notion that their “movement” is dying, anyone who is a keen observer will see that our conclusion is right on the money.  Due to the incessant infighting among Hyper-Preterists regarding the fundamentals of their  faith, the Hyper-Preterist community has fragmented more and more during the past three years, to the point where the community is now in the sickest state its ever been.  In previous articles, I’ve written about the reluctance of H.P. leaders to publicly censure Sam Frost on his teaching that human history will ultimately come to a close.  As I’ve thought more about the issue, I’ve figured out precisely why leaders are willing to compromise on such a major point.. 

Gimme That Mountain!

[Note: This article represents the prophetic and eschatological views of Brian Simmons, co-administrator of “Preterist News.”  The writer is speaking on behalf of himself only, giving his opinion on a much-disputed prophetic passage.  As always, charity and humility are the watchwords when dealing with such historically inflammatory issues as the second coming of Christ, the repentance/restoration of the Jewish people, and the timing and nature of the Millennium.  If this article should offend the reader, please be informed that it was not the author’s intention].

Well, folks, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Ken Gentry has written a seven-point response to a comment I posted at his “Against Dispensationalism” blog, in which I argued for a literal fulfillment of Zechariah 14. My comment was published in reply to an article he wrote entitled “Marvelous Mountains and Clueless Dispensationalism.” The full comment is as follows:

“Dr. Gentry,

   “Although I am not a Dispensationalist, I understand Zechariah 14 in its plain and natural sense. Please read Acts 1: 9-11. It is conceivable that when Christ returns, He will descend to the Mt. of Olives, in the literal clouds of heaven. See “Didache” chap. 16 on this.

   “If you admit location in Zech. 14, you should take the passage literally. For instance, if the city of Jerusalem is the literal city, then the mount of Olives EASTWARD of the city must be literal as well. Direction demands location. Otherwise, you are using an inconsistent two-tiered hermeneutic. There is simply no objective exegetical basis for taking the city literally, and the mountain spiritually.

   “Also, just because God said He was the fountain of living waters does not necessarily allow one to import that concept into Zech. 14. Christ also said “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11: 25), yet orthodox Christians do not spiritualize passages that speak of the physical resurrection of the body. This very kind of reasoning is what leads to Hyper-Preterism and Hymeneanism.”

   Since the issue Gentry’s writing about is pretty important, I figured I’d post a short counter-rebuttal here, that readers may see that the prophecy must be taken in its plain and natural sense. I’ll give Gentry’s seven points of refutation in order, followed by my responses..