Edwards/Talbot Debate Rescheduled

You may have heard that there was a debate set up between Roderick Edwards and Kenneth Talbot that was supposedly going to take place in Chicago. (ref) Well, this debate has been rescheduled as follows:

AFFIRMATION OF CHRISTIANITY
Roderick Edwards, Christian since 1984 and saved even while having fallen for a time into the heresy of Hyperpreterism, Edwards will affirm that Christianity is of God and is the “religion” of the Bible as taught and revealed by Jesus Christ and His hand-picked apostles.

REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY AND AFFIRMATION OF MORMONISM
Kenneth Talbot, Seminary president who allows known heretics to edit otherwise supposedly “Christian” material (ref – See Sam Frost’s bio), Talbot will deny Christianity and instead advocate the Book of Mormon as being a supplement to the Bible and Joseph Smith jr. as a true prophet.

In addition to the main debate, Roderick Edwards will also debate two of Talbot’s proxies with the following participants and topics.

Dee Dee Warren’s DOCUMENTED Lie

We need to add something to Dee Dee Warrens profile.  We have noted how she uses crude, lewd sexual references in her podcast, but now she out and out LIES.  The woman claimed I was “removed forcibly” from her now megalomaniac blog.  However, the FACT remains from her original statement BEFORE she became a full blown Talbotite.

Let’s quote (from her own website):

Kelly Birks Still a Hyperpreterist

Over the past year, hyperpreterist leader, Kelly Birks has been welcomed with open arms by those who are supposed to be fighting against hyperpreterism.  Both Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Theological Seminary and the Dee Dee Warren group on PreteristBlog have welcomed Birks without calling him on his continued hyperpreterism.

Birks has claimed he is no longer a hyperpreterist, and had said some things to make it look like he wasn’t.  Yet his fellow hyperpreterists, like Sam Frost don’t believe him…and you shouldn’t either.  Here is a quote from Birks on March 25, 2010:

“Succinctly put, I believe there exists no exegetical validity behind the idea of separating the “coming” of Christ in AD 70 from THE Second Coming taught by Christ in the gospels and in the epistles. I am convinced and have been for many years, that they are one and the same. The Bible teaches only one second coming, not a coming at AD 70 and an unbiblical third coming off at another time in history. The Daniel 7 passage is in reference to and tied to the events from AD 66-70. All of the passages that speak of the Parousia/ Second Coming, are all stated or implied to occur in “that generation” of the first century. It is my position that the scriptures do not teach the second coming that is outside of the first century. This is a “hill” that i have chosen to die on, as it were. I believe it is the evidence of a pressuppositional point of view that reads the idea of a third coming into scripture that the scriptures themselves will not establish.” — source

Does It Matter How We Fight Hyper-Preterism?

   Ever since the recent split that occurred between those combating the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism, there has much talk in the air as to maintaining a neutral attitude towards those whose methods differ from our own.  I’ve been told several times that it doesn’t matter HOW one fights Hyper-Preterism, but that the method should be left up to each individual.  The reason for this stance is because since last year, Dr. Kenneth Talbot, president of Whitefield Seminary, has been (allegedly) engaging in a behind-the-scenes battle against Hyper-Preterism to prevent it from making serious headway in the church.  The strategic guidelines which he has been laying down have been deemed unacceptable by some (including myself), who feel that he is coddling Hyper-Preterists, and being unrealistic in his assessments.  Besides that, Talbot, instead of urging Christians to return to historic Christianity, has felt the need to invent an entirely new eschatology called “Realized Preterism” in order to deal with the problem of Hyper-Preterism.  

When The Compromisers Come: Contra Mundum

The Church has been faced with various heresies since the start; be it the Judaizers who were said to be “believers” (Acts 15:5) but advocated Christians must hold to overall Judaism, or whether it be the Gnostics, or the Arians, or the worse heresy; hyperpreterism.  The Church as a whole has always stepped up to the challenge…eventually.  But often leading up to the time when the Church actually deals with the heresy there comes compromisers; people claiming to be Christians who really want to simply placate the heresy and accept it as much as possible.  This is most pointed in the Arian heresy.

My Case Against “Orthodox” Partial Preterism

    Everyone remembers the episode in Luke 11: 39-44, where our Lord denounced the Pharisees for their legalism, hypocrisy, and observance of the mere externals of religion. The lawyers sat there for awhile, listening to Christ’s criticisms as patiently as they could; until one of them determined to speak up.  Said he: “Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also” (Luke 11: 45).  But in response to his words, our Lord, instead of letting up, turned his verbal artillery upon the lawyers, including them in the number of those Israelites  —  mere descendants of Abraham, but not his children  —  who were culpable for their rejection of His Divine ministry to the nation.

  I was asked not long ago, why I don’t make a sharper distinction between heretical “Full” Preterism and orthodox “partial” Preterism.  After all, said my critic, this distinction needs to be pressed, so people do not think that Partial Preterism is in the same boat as Full or Hyper-Preterism.  This is because one is a heresy, whereas the other is a valid evangelical option.  So he reasoned.   Well, in all fairness, I do try to make a distinction between what I conceive to be heresy and orthodoxy.  However, I suppose the reader was right in that I don’t make an especial point of distinguishing between full and partial preterism in my articles, podcasts, and videos.  The reason is, quite simply, because I am not sure where that distinction can be drawn..

Sam Frost On “Realized Preterism”

“Dr. Talbot told me he will be doing a series of lectures in his church on it in 2010, plus we are still on target for our debate-book. Realized Preterism…..I have some hunches, and have been right up to this point: the Second Coming BEGAN in A.D. 70. It will culminate in a postmillennial victory over the world in terms of culture and life, which, in turn, will bring about a manifestation of the perfection (resurrection) of all of life and a physical manifestation of the Lord – a culminative END to the Second Coming. It is something along those lines. I have picked this up from my talks with Talbot over burritoes….”

http://thereignofchrist.com/it-took-a-year/#disqus_thread