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..

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.. 

Giving Hymeneans Something To Cry About

     As one whose ministry deals mainly in refuting preterist theology, I often receive emails from people who have questions regarding Preterism or Hyper-Preterism.  Of course, I also get a deal of hate-mail, which I generally ignore.  But occasionally I receive an email asking for my “prognosis” regarding a case of hardboiled H.P.   Just yesterday, a guy wrote me to say that his friend of 16 years has ventured down the path of Hyper-Preterism, and now refuses to listen to reason, or the the plain unvarnished testimony of Scripture.  His question was whether there are any arguments that could convince his pal that Hyper-Preterism is wrong.

  I wrote back to say that although I didn’t want to be a harbinger of despair, it is a fact that once someone embraces H.P. the chances of his snapping out of it are slim indeed.  If ever someone walks away from Hyper-Preterism, it will be the grace of God that changes his heart  —   and not any mere polemical argument.  However, for the record I stated what I felt to be the single most impressive argument against Hyper-Preterist theology.  That argument is one I have fielded several times in the past, and is so is important that it impacts the very meaning of the Gospel message..

Hyper-Preterism: More Creedal Contradictions

   One of the chief studies I’ve been engaged in of late is that of patrology.  This involves the study of the early church fathers, who have given us what we know as “orthodoxy.”  Although patrology (also known as patristics) does not necessarily include study of the creeds and confessions of Christendom, these creeds do nevertheless function as a backdrop to the teachings of those men who defended the faith, and whose writings have been preserved by the church.  The creeds will often be found, in their minutest particulars, to codify what the fathers believed regarding matters of Christian theology..

The Mustard-Tree Parable

 Whenever we explain to Hyper-Preterists and others the necessity of returning to orthodox Christianity, we are always apt to be treated with some skepticism as to what orthodoxy is all about.  After all, our opponents say, there are so many different “brands” of orthodoxy, that it becomes difficult at times to distinguish which is correct, and which incorrect.  This gives them license (so they think) to reject orthodoxy altogether  —   not knowing that while species may vary, the genus remains  the same.  That is to say, all orthodoxy has a common basis which implies agreement on essential characteristics.. 

Chiliasm Defended, From Sources Ancient And Modern (Chapter 6)

Chapter VI.

  Having already written so much preliminary matter, in which we have attempted to show, as clearly as possible, that Christ’s coming will be pre-millennial, and that the kingdom will be inaugurated at His return, it remains for us to devote at least one chapter to the subject of ecclesiology.  For greater reason why some men reject the doctrines of Chiliasm, is that they are not fully grounded in truths relating to the Christian church.  Whether this church is visible, invisible, or both; whether it is in the world to reign, or to bear testimony prior to that reign; whether it is a continuation of the Jewish church, or something entirely new; and many like questions, have beset us so often in our conversations with others, that we feel it incumbent upon ourselves to outline what we believe to be the correct notions regarding ecclesiology.

  It will already be understood, by those who have read the previous chapters of this work, that we date the church, in both its visible and invisible forms, from the resurrection of Christ, and no sooner.  Repeating this position now will render unecessary explanations that might make this book unreasonably prolix.  We prefer, rather, to back our assertions in a manner which may be called illustrative; for instead of erecting a mass of argumentation which could be easily brushed down by one skilled in debate, we shall proceed to “compare spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2: 13); and fix our proofs upon such a foundation as will render the superstructure impregnable to the assaults of the natural man..

Development Versus Demolition

   One of the prominent signs of disease in Christendom today, is the spirit of wanton revisionism pawned off as organic development.  For some reason, the distemper has taken whole sections of the professing church under its spell, so that anybody who calls for a return to historic Christianity is branded an enemy of progress —   one who would fain hustle the church back into the dark ages.  When we come, however, to analyze the modernistic tendencies, their rationale and modus operandi, we can’t help but see that they are based, not on a desire to attain the truth, but on the ambitions of those who wish to make a name for themselves in the academic, religious, and secular worlds.  As with all forms of pride and self-will, the tendency to demolish the ancient landmarks of our faith must be weeded out and pruned back, else they will plunge Christendom into a chaos of doctrinal confusion, the likes of which man has never yet seen..