Well, I try not to pay much attention to what goes on daily in the Hyper-Preterist community. However, this morning my attention was drawn to a new Ning site administered by Hyper-Preterist Sharon Nichols. At present, she appears to be the only member at this site. However, I'm sure that will change ere long.
On this site is a number of posts written by Mrs. Nichols, which purport to "answer" various challenges that have been put forward by opponents of the Hyper-Pret position. In particular is a post which is entitled: "Brian Simmons, You Owe Full Preterists An Apology!" This is a reaction to a comment I posted a few weeks ago at a Phil Naessens' Theology Today blog, in which I wrote:
"Hyper-Preterists remind me of a group of AIDS-cases who blame the city-council for not providing condoms free of charge. The fallacy is pretty obvious. When we make a 'lifestyle' choice to embrace heresy, the established church easily becomes the 'enemy.' Hyper-Prets have been openly rebuffed, kicked in the head, and cast out of assembles, and so their posture toward the truth is entirely offensive. Like the AIDS-cases mentioned above, they simply WILL not hold themselves responsible for their own lifestyle choice. It’s always OUR fault that they’re in this mess."
Well, admittedly, this is some pretty strong language. And I suppose the crudity of the analogy does render my comment a bit out of line. Therefore, for this matter I extend the Hyper-Preterist community a word of apology, and freely withdraw the analogy.
However, I must make it clear that this in no wise changes my stance concerning the gravity of Hyper-Preterist doctrine. The very fact that I painted the community in such strong colors will serve to illustrate to Mrs. Nichols my indignation toward the system she represents. Although it perhaps does not merit comparison to perverse sexual behavior, I must take the opportunity to tell Nichols and others exactly what I do think of her position.
I believe Hyper-Preterism is a heresy, and that it is a damnable doctrine. I won't resort to councils and creeds to support me in this matter; although most folks know that I could easily build a historical case for my position. The Word of God clearly represents the doctrine of the resurrection as a fundamental article of the faith (Hebrews 6: 2), and the correct reception of this doctrine as a salvational issue (1 Cor. 15: 2).
Those who deny the resurrection of the body deny the consummation of the redemption which was paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ. Calling His sacrificial death on Calvary's Cross a mere "sign" (view source) is the worst kind of blasphemy, and worthy of the severest rebuke.
I would like Nichols and others to know that I can give this community no leeway whatsoever when it comes to recognizing them as disciples of the Good Shepherd. Not only do I not recognize Hyper-Preterists as Christians, but I suspect that many of them have never enjoyed Christ's saving work experimentally. Despite their pretensions, their fruit gives them away (Matt. 7: 15-20).
While I have no qualms in apologizing for making an off-color comment on a theology blog, I am pretty sure that I'll be waiting a long time for Hyper-Preterists to apologize to the Christian community for amending the Gospel, perverting the doctrines of salvation, and spreading damnable heresies.
I have found many of Nichols's affiliates to be lacking in the basic essentials of humility, godliness, and honesty. As I write, some of these individuals are even pursuing degrees from orthodox seminaries, so they can gain enough prestige to make their heresies more respectable. Like all heretics, they are subversive in their approach.
Their constant claim that they rely on the "Bible alone" is a lie. For after making up their minds what they want to believe, they revise the Scriptures to suit themselves, and have no regard for the consensus of scholars more learned than themselves. They affirm that the fallibility of man renders the aggregate testimony of 2,000 years of Christian teaching erroneous. But they refuse to extend such fallibility to themselves, thus making each of them equal to the pope of Rome.
There is simply no parleying with individuals of this mindset. They are proud, arrogant, and unteachable. Our business is not to politely discuss with them terms and conditions, but to rebuke them as Peter rebuked Simon of Samaria (Acts 8: 21-22), or as Paul rebuked Elymas the sorceror (Acts 13: 10).
Regardless of what her friends may think of this post, Mrs. Nichols has cause to congratulate herself that she belongs to a cult. My message to her is: Enjoy your cult, while you breathe the air God provides, and the blood runs in your veins. The time will come when you must meet your Maker, and then you will give an account of everything you have said or done in connection with this community to which you belong. But, as the adage goes, while there is life there is hope; and my prayer is that you repent of this false doctrine, and return to the paths of truth.
