Mike Loomis’s Petulant Plot

     As we daily expose the diverse and ever-changing facets of the Hyper-Preterist movement, we are often asked why we treat the teachers and proponents of H.P. so harshly.  I mean, shouldn’t we be more “loving” and empathetic toward those who are caught up in this heresy?  In giving our defense, it is important to point out that there is a major difference between someone who is just following Hyper-Preterist theology because he/she thinks it is true, and one who has given up everything to dedicate his/her life to promoting and defending the movement.  Once a person crosses that line and assumes a leadership position, he/she must be dealt with on different principles.  At that point our focus is no longer to “convince” (as in the case of a mere follower), but to expose and discredit the false teacher..

Roderick Edwards: Tell It How It Is!

  Roderick Edwards recently made a great point when he suggested that the views of “Covenant Creationism” form the most consistent expression of the Hyper-Preterist faith.  Edwards writes:

“Hello Jeff, how are you doing? I’m glad you brought this up. One thing I’ve tried to do over the years, even while I was caught within the cult of hyperpreterism, was to be honest with others and with myself. It is true that under the hyperpret paradigm I taught that the so-called “five-fold” offices found in Eph 4:11-15 were no longer in operation — I mean even you and most Christians believe at least 2 of the offices have ceased; being apostles and prophets. I was simply being “consistent” and calling for the cessation of ALL the offices. I was being a good hyperpreterist.

Further, I would point to verses like 1 Pet 5:1-4 wherein we see Peter talking about the “chief shepherd”, Christ and that when He comes, He will give the undershepherds their crowns. If Jesus has already come, then who would still be an “undershepherd”/elder/pastor? This was my “consistent” logic while I was a hyperpreterist.

What is interesting, is at the time Sam Frost resisted this view. Though later he privately adopted it, and even told me so on the phone. As matter of fact, Sam even wrote in an article he called “Observations”

“Even the Elders in that time [pre-AD70] had authority to ‘teach the oracles of God.’ But, I do not believe, because I am a [hyper] preterist, that such ‘inspired’ authority exists today. I do not believe that God has set up yet another ‘nation’ in the new covenant that commands uniformity and punishment if uniformity is not met.” — Sam Frost from an article called “Observations” speaking of the role of pre & post AD70 Christian “elders/pastors”
If you recall, that was my EXACT reasoning, later adopted by Sam. But what I’d like you to notice today Jeff is this current comment by Sam:

Quote:

“In Preterist theology, we have to argue for the case of establishment in Ecclesiology. Some of you may remember years ago my scrapes with Roderick Edwards, who, then as a Preterist, was arguing AGAINST elders, rulers, leaders, etc. within any established “church” meeting. Some of this falls into the work of Frank Viola (Pagan Christianity), Towards A House Church and Ekklesia: The Roots of Biblical Church Life (both by Steve Atkerson). Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity is also good. It may be along these lines that Preterist Ecclesiology can work out its systematic arguments on this matter.” — Sam Frost (source)

You see Jeff, for all of Sam&Co’s disdain of me over the years, now that I have left the hyperpret movement, they feel ok to adopt those very views. But let me say something more to you Jeff. Although I think ALL hyperpreterism is a heresy, I can at least respect that the BCS group is CONSISTENTLY applying the paradigm to everything. Sam&Co are like nibbling fish who only take little bites and as we see from Frost above, he opposed something until he could make it his own. He will continue to oppose BCS until he can figure out someway to make it his own — since the “presumed scholar” certainly cannot accept views from a mere window-washer like Tim Martin.”