If You Could Leave The Movement…

After the shocking article by Jason Bradfield, the protege of hyperpreterist leader, Sam Frost I thought it would be interesting to consider how a person could or would ever leave the hyperpreterist movement.  Bradfield’s article (see here) certainly sounded like someone on the edge of abandoning the movement.   However, it is becoming more and more apparent that Bradfield has no intention on leaving the movement.  He is simply trying to distance himself from his fellow hyperpreterists and join his mentor, Frost in creating a privatized version which they can better control.

But what if someone actually did want to leave the movement?  I don’t mean like some of these half-hearted, fake departures we have seen by people like Sharon Nichols and others who spend more time validating and chumming around on hyperpreterist message boards more than they did when they claimed they were in the movement.  I mean, what if someone wanted to actually repudiate hyperpreterism as a person would as they abandoned say an addiction to drugs, smoking, drinking or being part of a cult.  How would a person do that?

Sincerity Rarity Among Hyperpreterism

As a former 15-year long hyperpreterist myself, I have for a few years now, been beating the drum that the number one issue that hyperpreterism must face is that hyperpreterism MUST claim that 2,000 years of historic Christianity has been in gross error on the basics of eschatology.  Typically, hyperpreterists respond in a few ways:

1. Claim some sort of ‘trace’ form of preterism that supposedly always has existed in historic Christianity (yet no such form exists).
2. Claim some massive dupe of Christianity, such as a 1st-century rapture or immediate post-AD70 apostasy that has supposedly left historic Christianity in supposed error.  Or simply claim 2000 years of Christians have been unitedly stupid when it comes to interpreting the Bible on eschatology
3. Ridicule the question as an appeal to Roman Catholicism (“Eckwardian”)
4. Ignore the question and redirect (such as trying to have a discussion over ‘time-statements’)

How Hyperpreterism Affects the Atonement

Hyperpreterists are fond of making it look like their view barely affects historic Christian doctrines.  For example they will often say something to the effect, “That they don’t deny the resurrection of the believers…they merely place it in the past”.  This attempt to minimize hyperpreterism’s actual chasm of departure from historic Christianity is a frequent plot of hyperpreterists all the while in the next breath hyperpreterists will ridicule the Church as having supposedly been in gross error for 2000 years.

Recently, someone wrote me asking how hyperpreterism affects the Atonement.  Now, if a hyperpreterist were to answer this, they might claim there is no affect but that just isn’t true.  Let’s explore.

Hyperpreterism’s Impact on the Function of the Holy Spirit

Whether you believe hyperpreterism is heretical or not, it is important to examine how the hyperpreterist paradigm impacts doctrines beyond just eschatology.  When I was in the movement back in the 1990s a common mantra voiced by hyperpreterists was that they were proposing a “paradigm shift“.  But as opponents of hyperpreterism continuously pointed out that even hyperpreterist’s were unwittingly admitting their doctrine — as a radical paradigm shift — is indeed a radical departure from historic Christianity.  Hyperpreterists didn’t want their views framed this way and have since toned down using the term “paradigm shift” in reference to their views.

Adopting hyperpreterism is not like adding a theological accessory to your Christianity.  Hyperpreterism ISN’T just about your “endtimes” or eschatological views.  Hyperpreterism impacts EVERY aspect of your belief.  I’d like to take a look at how hyperpreterism impacts the function or role of the Holy Spirit.

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..