Do Heretics Have Freedom Of Speech?

For many years a massive "information war" has been waged between 'orthodox' and 'heretical' Christians. After engaging in this warfare myself for some time, it occurred to me that we are living in the United States of America, and ought to have more charity when it comes to our neighbor's right to air his opinions. I asked in my last article, "If a man drinks poison, it is his right?" So now I will ask: "Do heretics have freedom of speech?" The answer is, "yes, absolutely"--so long as their activities remain outside the church.

We must understand that there are Scriptural procedures for dealing with heresy. When Paul addressed those who caused divisions and offenses, he always spoke of them as existing in a local church setting, & as being dealt with by qualified ministers of the Gospel (2 Tim. 4: 2; Titus 1: 9-13, 3: 10). Paul would never have approved of lay-people sitting in their homes in Corinth, Ephesus, or what have you, and writing private attacks against Hymeneus and Philetus. No. That is not the approved Christian method. The correct procedure is to rebuke one before an assembled congregation, and if he refuses to repent, to exercise church discipline (2 Cor. 13: 10; 3 John 9-10).

But how can church discipline be exercised when 95% of the people we are dealing with don't even belong to any church? The few that do belong to churches ought to be under the authority of their pastors/elders (Hebrews 13: 7, 13). If they are operating outside of the church, however, there is no way to Scripturally deal with them. Yes, you can put up 20 different web sites and blogs to attack their views, but all it ever amounts to is a spread of information, whether good or bad. It is a mere tug-of-war between diverse opinions.

The Hyper-Preterist heresy does not pose as a serious problem. Why not? Because it exists outside of the parameters of the local church. As an Independent Baptist, I have moved among many Gospel ministers & churches, including those of the Southern Baptist denomination, and already know for certain that Hyper-Preterism would never stand a chance in a Scripturally-run congregation. If one of my ministerial brethren got to hear these views, he'd shut his ears after a few seconds, because the doctrines are so far removed from normal Christianity that they carry their own seal of condemnation.

But let's be hypothetical. Suppose Hyper-Preterists attempted to take over a church. Perhaps they succeeded--what then? That would result in a breaking of fellowship among all sister churches. So, the heretical church would be left an isolated body. And isolated bodies pose no threat to the Christian community.

In order to take Hyper-Preterism seriously, I would have to see it burgeoning along denominational/local church lines. I would have to see large numbers of H.P.'s filtering into organizations like the Southern Baptist convention. And that isn't happening! The reason is, because most Christians (especially in the Bible-belt) are traditionalists. You won't get many of them to listen to something they've never heard before. Far from being a bad thing (as I used to think), I think such traditionalism operates as an effective buffer against heresy & newfangled teachings (2 Thess. 3: 6).

But if a heresy does ever get into a church, there are methods of dealing with it. Of course the individual "By-Laws" of each church will determine the exact course of church discipline. But there is no Scripturally approved method of dealing with heresy outside the church. I suppose the atheists have a right to promote their beliefs. American Socialists & anarchists have a right to peacefully assemble & to speak against the government that shelters them--so long as their activities are in accordance with the law. Hyper-Preterists have a right to run websites speaking against the historic Christian faith. This is a free country.

That is why I have laid down my arms and am no longer fighting Hyper-Preterism. I realize now that these men are my "brothers" in the human family, and that as fellow-Americans they have every right to promote their ideologies. Just because I don't agree with certain views, that doesn't make it right for me to prohibit my neighbor's freedom of speech. Then, too, I have to admit that as these doctrines are not cropping up in local assemblies of baptized believers they are no threat to organized Christianity.

Let's face it. Even among the "Church of Christ" denomination, Hyper-Preterism is so small and insignificant that the majority of ministers have never even heard of it. What is called "Partial" Preterism is equally unknown. Whether we like it or not, we'll have to admit that we've vastly over-estimated this heresy. We have witnessed the zeal of some of its leaders, and have made them far more important than they really are. Let us stop being so headstrong in our attacks, & acknowledge that our neighbor has as much right to voice his beliefs as we do.

If any heresy gets to be a problem, rest assured that the churches will know how to deal with it. It is bad enough to over-estimate heresiarchs. Let us not under-estimate the average Bible-believing Christian. Most people who believe in Christ know enough to stay away from poison, and our warnings are not needed. If they are, however, let us feel free to speak with them about it, provided we do not interfere with the free-speech rights of others. We may always remain true Christians. But let us be good Americans as well.

When Warfare Times Out

Sometimes after advocating a certain policy, we realize later that we were wrong. The question occurred to me the other day: "If a man insists on drinking poison, is it his inalienable right to do so?" Up to yesterday I would have said, "no." But the more I think it over, the more I realize my own restrictions in such a matter. I may give input & advice, but only God can hold one accountable for his actions.

During the past several months I've struggled to combat the heresy of Hyper-Preterism. Like the suicide question, I thought it was my responsibility to tell others what to do & think. I was forgetting that we are living in a free country. Our founding fathers left Europe and shed their blood to ensure freedom of speech and religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have every right to practice their faith. So do the Hyper-Preterists.

What need to worry? Hyper-Preterism is an insignificant movement that hardly poses a threat to Christianity. Roderick Edwards and I talked this over, and we've agreed that the heresy will always be a struggling movement. It is an internet disease alone. It has never gotten to any local church/denominational level. What importance can it really have? If the worldwide web crashed tomorrow, Christianity would go on functioning as it always has.

Today I woke up & realized that I no longer care about proving Hyper-Preterism false. During these weeks my eyes have been opened more & more to the realities of this movement--to its past history and the personalities around which it is built. I've also been made aware of the various tactics used to intimidate those whom the leaders of the movement feel are getting too vocal.

In a way I'm glad all this information came to me. For it confirms in my mind more than anything else ever could, that Hyper-Preterism doesn't need any help from me to pull it down. It is already destroying itself. Any religion which cannot produce in its members the fruits of peace and righteousness will never gain credit among true children of God. And I thank God for that.

So, I cheerfully accept the fact that it is time to move on. I will continue to write articles promoting the truths of Christianity, & maintain my position on the validity of the historical Christian faith, but will only address the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism in an incidental way if occasion requires. Much less will I focus on the personalities of the movement.

Yes, my war against Hyper-Preterism is over. I hereby lay aside sword and shield, and take up the olive branch of peace. I commit myself once more to preaching the Gospel committed to my trust--knowing that the truth comes with its own seal of approval. It does not need any tinsel and ornament to set it off. Do we have the truth? Let us be assured that we do. If so, we shall stand in the Day of judgment unashamed and undefeated. Amen.

Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint- On "This Generation"

Jesus’ words, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” are the chief cornerstone in the preterists’ defense of their system. R. C. Sproul, a moderate or partial preterist, states, “The most critical portion of this text is Jesus’ declaration that ‘this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.’ ” Preterists point out that in all the other instances in the Gospels “this generation” refers to the then-present generation (Matt. 11:16; 12:41-42, 45; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12 [twice], 38; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50-51; 17:25; 21:32).

Preterists also assert that Christ was warning people who were living then. For instance in the same general context the Lord said, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36). Dispensationalists agree that 24:34 refers to the Lord’s contemporaries. To make the saying even more emphatic, οὐ μή with the aorist subjunctive occurs in all three Synoptic references (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). The verse may be rendered, “By no means will this generation pass away.”

How then is this verse to be explained? Actually it is difficult for any theological position, including that held by moderate preterists. (They struggle to interpret “all these things,” which clearly implies the coming of Christ in glory described in verses 27-31 and 37-41.) A number of explanations of verse 34 have been proposed. First is the interpretation of the preterists, who say all the predictions of Matthew 24:4-33; Mark 13:5-29; and Luke 21:8-31 were fulfilled in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. However, this view can be held only by overlooking the meaning of several verses in the discourse, including Matthew 23:39; 24:22, 27, 30, and the meaning of παρουσία.

A second interpretation, held by a number of futurists, affirms that the noun γενεά means race, that is, the Jewish race. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich give “clan” as a primary meaning, but they list only Luke 16:8 as an illustration in the New Testament. It is difficult for dispensational premillennialists to take this view because this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return: “This race of Israel will not pass away until the Second Advent.” But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium in order to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.

A third interpretation, common among dispensationalists, is that “this generation” refers to the future generation of Jews who will be alive when the Lord Jesus returns. For example Hiebert says, “It seems best to preserve the natural meaning of generation as denoting the people alive at a given time and accept the view that the reference is to that future, turbulent, wicked generation that will see the actual beginning of those eschatological events (vv. 14-23). The assurance is that the end-time crisis will not be of indefinite duration.”

The near demonstrative pronoun may have the meaning of a near concept (cf. “this bread,” 1 Cor. 11:26). But the problem remains that in the New Testament “this generation” normally refers to the generation contemporaneous with the speaker or writer. As Carson affirms, ” ‘This generation’ . . . can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.”

A fourth interpretation says this is an illustration of multiple fulfillment. As Mounce asserts, “Biblical prophecy is capable of multiple fulfillments.” He comments as follows on Matthew 24:32-35. In the immediate context, the “abomination of desolation” (v. 15) builds on the defilement of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, is repeated when the sacred temple in Jerusalem is destroyed by the Roman army in A.D. 70, and has yet a more complete fulfillment when the eschatological Antichrist exalts himself by taking his seat in the “temple of God” proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess. 2:3-4). In a similar way, the events of the immediate period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem portend a greater and more universal catastrophe when Christ returns in judgment at the end of time. Gundry is right in his observations that double fulfillment (I would say “multiple fulfillment”) involves an ambiguity that needs to be accepted as fact rather than objected to on literary grounds. A number of commentators agree with this explanation.

Another question for all interpreters is the meaning of “all these things” in Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30 (Luke 21:32 has “all things”). It is possible that the “these things” looks back to the question of the disciples when they asked, “When will these things [the destruction of the temple] happen”? (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7). But there are difficulties with this explanation. First, the question of the disciples is so far removed from the Lord’s statement in Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; and Luke 21:32 that it makes such an interpretation improbable. Second, when the Lord said “all these things,” He undoubtedly was looking at more than the destruction of the temple. “All these things” must include His glorious return to reign, as the immediate context clearly implies.

A fifth interpretation seems best. It takes the verb γένηται as an ingressive aorist. The same verb is found in all three Synoptics and is translated “takes place” (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32). As an ingressive aorist it emphasizes the beginning of the action with the meaning “begin to take place.” All those things would begin in that generation and find their ultimate completion at the Second Advent. This fits with the idea of not being deceived by the events mentioned in Matthew 24:4-8. The Lord specifically referred to these as “the beginning of birth pangs” (v. 8). Interestingly, although Mounce does not accept this interpretation, he suggests it as a possibility and gives no refutation of it.

[Stanley D. Toussaint, BibSac 161:644 (Oct 2004) p. 483-86]

When Warfare Gets Dirty

On a recent blog post at "Sovereign Grace Preterism," Sam Frost continued his rant against orthodoxy by making numerous allegations against Roderick Edwards & myself. It was my intention to let these men stew in their own broth for a time. After Jason Bradfield's weak attempt to refute our position (after which he threatened to sue me), I considered the conversation over with.

However, it appears these men have a great relish for provoking continual discord. It seems that no matter what we do, Sam and his friends continue to find fault with our actions. Article after article appears on their site daily, and in each article they wax more zealous in maintaining their heresy and assaulting our orthodox position. Will the madness never end?

First of all, I don't know 90% of what is going on with the Gary DeMar controversy. I never even heard of DeMar until several months ago, nor have I read any of his books or articles. To me he is just another false teacher/ compromiser who needs to be combated. For more information on this phase of the war, see http://we-support-hyperpreterism.blogspot.com/

That brings us to the question: What is a false teacher? A false teacher is someone who knowingly spreads heresy. I think many people over at Sovereign Grace Preterism would fit that description. Of course, I agree with Roderick that Hyper-Preterism is a "damnable" heresy. It is damnable because men use it to replace God's gospel with their own subjective message. This is the "dirty little secret" which only those "initiated" into their cult understand. The newbies aren't told that hardly any of the New Testament "applies" to Christians today.

I heard Sam, Jason, and Mike's latest podcast, and do not even consider their 'Sola Scriptura' argument worth a serious reply. If you choose to go by "the Bible alone," you still have to answer why 2,000 years of Christian teachers disagree with you. Perhaps you are wrong and they are right. Once again, will any of you rascals openly debate me on this topic? Of course not. Your position is indefensible, and you know it.

One of Sam's favorite arguments against myself is that I am a "heretic" because the Augsburg Confession "damns" Chiliasm. But this confession was drawn up at the request of Emperor Charles V, and was put forward as a means of conciliating the Roman Catholic church. Papists have always been antagonistic to Chiliasm. Why? Because Chiliasts hold that all secular world government will be replaced by the Divine government of Jesus Christ. For obvious reasons, this doctrine is not friendly toward those who wish to maintain their rulership in this present world.

Then, too, I have to say that the "Chiliasm" depicted in that document is one which I don't even know (line sound familiar?). The confession reads: "They condemn others also, who now scatter Jewish opinions, that, before the resurrection of the dead, the godly shall occupy the kingdom of the world, the wicked being everywhere suppressed [the saints alone, the pious, shall have a worldly kingdom, and shall exterminate the godless]."

Now, when did I ever say anything about "exterminating the godless"? This doctrine is news to me. Also, I have no notion of any worldly kingdom 'before the resurrection.' I hold to the teachings of apostolic Chiliasm, that the kingdom shall ensue after the resurrection. So, unless Sam can be more explicit in defining the doctrine he professes to be "damned" by the Reformers, he is barking up the wrong tree.

Again, if Sam looked closely enough he'd find that the same confession 'damns' the Baptists as a general rule, anathematizing those who reject infant baptism! I am a Baptist by the way. In my opinion, there is far too much "damning" going on in this confession. At the same time, however, it is interesting to note that the document endorses the Apostle's Creed & Nicene Creed, as well as the writings of Ambrose & Augustine.

Everyone knows that the Augsburg Confession & Helvetic Confessions never passed into general usage as universal creeds of the Christian church. I would consider the Westminster Confession far more important as representing the theology of the Reformers in general. And let's not forget that Dr. Twisse, a Chiliast, was president of that assembly.

In fact, Chiliasm has always shown great affinity for the doctrines of Calvinism. I assure Sam and his friends that I am far more "Sovereign Grace" than they are, who believe that evil will exist "forever and ever and ever." Once again, I challenge them to meet me on these issues.

As for any personal attacks made upon Sam, I have to plead "not guilty." I used to have a drinking problem years ago, so to pick on Sam because he has a can of suds now and then would be like the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, drunkenness is a sin and will bar one from entering Jesus Christ's kingdom. However, I have no right to judge anyone because of his personal life. I don't even know Sam! I am making my judgments based on the false doctrines he and his associates are spreading.

Sam complains, however, that we are ruining his reputation. He writes: "Roderick Edwards and Brian Simmons are doing everything within their power to defame me, ruin my name, my reputation and my good standing with many Church leaders." Now, really, if Sam is preaching the truth and acting honorably in this situation, how could anything either Roderick or myself say harm him?

If, on the other hand, Sam is preaching lies and error, defending a false position & acting dishonorably, then, yes, I would have to say that his reputation may undergo a beating. Only Sam knows where he truly stands. His conscience has nothing to do with me. My only business is to defend orthodoxy and combat heresy.

But despite all of this arguing and verbal abuse going on, I know one thing for sure. One day (it may be a month from now, or perhaps ten years) these men are going to wake up and realize that their theology is groundless. Funny enough, in that day I won't be around to chide them or to say "I told you so," but will offer the the hand of fellowship and say, "Welcome home." Until that happens, my position toward them will remain the same. And I assure you that Jesus Christ will grant the victory to those who combat the heresy of Hyper-Preterism.

The Throne Of David

In this present age there is a great deal of false information being spread regarding the "throne of David". The establishment of this throne on earth is the culmination of all the Messianic prophecies relating to both Israel and the Church. However, subversive elements within Gnostic/subjective Christianity have denied that Christ will physically reign over a renewed creation. Naturally, this causes complications, essentially rejecting true fulfillment of the Messianic promises. It also hopelessly divides Israel and the Church, preventing them from being united as "one body," which Christ came to accomplish.

The throne of David is not where Christ is sitting now. Christ is presently sitting at the right hand of His Father. In Revelation, Christ says: "To Him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in His throne" (Rev. 3: 21). When the Lord returns to judge mankind and resurrect His saints, He will not exalt the saints to His Father's throne, but will place us on His throne. The misconception that there is only one throne, where Christ is sitting now, prevents us from properly viewing the nature of the Messianic prophecies. We see the Messianic reign as being forever in the heavens, when that is not the case at all!

When the Lord returns, He will restore all things as the Second Adam. The First Adam was given dominion over the creation, but lost it on account of sin. But Christ, through the sacrifice of Himself, purchased the creation with His own blood. When He returns from the heavens, He shall not only redeem us, but also restore the heavens and earth that became subject unto bondage on our account. This is an important doctrine. What else does the "crown of thorns" signify, but Christ's redemption of the sin-accursed creation? When the times are filled up, and the anti-typical days complete, then shall arrive the perfected kingdom of Christ.

It is necessary to know that man's place is on earth, not in heaven. In his classic work, The Typology of Scripture, Rev. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D. writes: "We deem it incredible, that with the grant of the earth so distinctly made to man for his possession, and death so expressly appointed as the penalty of his yielding to the tempter, he should, as a subject of restoring grace, have looked for any other domain as the result of the Divine work in his behalf, than the earth itself, or for any other mode of entering on the recovered possession of it, than through a resurrection of the dead. For how should he have dreamt of a victory over evil in any other region than that where the evil had prevailed? Or how could the hope of a restitution have formed itself in his bosom, excepting as a prospective reinstatement in the benefits he had forfeited? A paradise such as he had originally occupied, but prepared now for the occupation of redeemed multitudes--made to embrace, it may be, the entire territory of the globe--wrested forever from the serpent's brood, and rendered through all its borders beautiful and good: that, and nothing else, we conceive, must have been what the first race of patriarchal believers hoped and waited for, as the objective portion of good reserved for them."

Thus, it is to the "restitution of all things" (Acts 3: 21) that the Messianic promises look forward--not to some vague, subjective salvation in which the moral state of man remains forever in the midst of evil--but to a release (jubilee) from the bondage of sin and corruption. To enter his glorified state man must be rid of the temptations of sin, that he may be fully sanctified (Eph. 5: 27). Since salvation is inseparably connected with moral experience, it is false to say that sanctification can be anything of a subjective or "covenantal" nature. When Christ returns, we shall "see Him as He is," for we shall "be like Him" (1 John 3: 2). We shall "see face to face" and "will know, even as we are known" (1 Cor. 13: 12). The struggle between the flesh and spirit will cease, when Christ comes to "change our vile bodies, that it may be fashioned unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself" (Col. 3: 21). These doctrines involve physical realities which will be verifiable by exprience.

But if the consummation of our redemption is real and not subjective, than the placement of the throne of David in the midst of the renewed earth must be real as well. We are not to look for a hypothetical and invisible coming of Christ, but for a personal, visible, and glorious return. This Peter avowed when He said: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the Holy Mount" (2 Peter 1: 16-18). Peter is affirming that Christ will return in the same glorious body in which He appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The promise will be fulfilled at the "end of the age," when the Lord sits on the throne of His glory to judge all nations. Then shall the throne of David be established on earth. It is a throne of delegated authority, entirely distinct from the throne of the Father. When Christ leaves His Father's throne to sit on the throne of David, He shall relinquish His purely Messianic session in the heavens, and will come to reign on earth. Then will the New Jerusalem come down from heaven and be placed in the midst of a redeemed multitude. "And the nations of them that are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it" (Rev. 21: 24). Should any man claim that this prophecy was fulfilled in the past, he must be prepared to affirm that there was a wholesale salvation of entire nations. But we know that isn't the case.

There is an ancient Jewish tradition that the Lord had His throne originally placed in Eden before man's fall and exile. The legend been preserved for us in the Apocryphal "Revelation of Moses." Now, what does Messianic restoration entail but the reinstatement of Christ's throne in the midst of the entire earth? There will a subjugation of all enemies when Messiah comes to reign. Once evil is abolished, then will Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be allotted their inheritance in the land of Canaan--which they never possessed on earth, although it was personally promised to them (Gen. 13: 14-15; 15: 7; 26: 3).

When will Abraham and his seed inherit the promised land? Only in the resurrection. And the resurrection can only occur after evil is subdued. Lactantius writes: "But the resurrection cannot take place while unrighteousness still prevails. For in this world men are slain by violence, by the sword, by ambush, by poisons, and and are visited with injuries, with want, with imprisonment, with tortures, with proscriptions. Add to this that righteousness is hated, that all who wish to follow God are not only held in hatred, but are harassed with all reproaches, and are tormented by manifold kinds of punishments, and are driven to the impious worship of gods made with hands, not by reason of truth, but by the dreadful laceration of their bodies. Ought men therefore to rise again to these same things, or to return to a life in which it is impossible for them to be safe? Since the righteous, then, are so lightly esteemed, and so easily taken away, what can we suppose would have happened if any one returning from the dead had recovered life by a recovery of his former condition? He would assuredly be taken away from the eyes of men, lest, if he were seen or heard, all men with one accord should leave the gods and betake themselves to the worship and religion of the one God. Therefore it is necessary that the resurrection should take place once only when evil shall have been taken away, since it is befitting that those who have risen again should neither die any more, nor be injured in any way, that they may be able to pass a happy life whose death has been annulled." (Divine Institutes, VII. xxii).

But will evil ever be vanquished? Not according to some. Because of their adherence to the Alexandrian mode of Biblical interpretation, they allegorize, spiritualize, and water down all of the prophecies whose doctrinal significance they cannot understand, and render them purely subjective in nature. In the end, they even make the abolition of evil and the reign of Christ hypothetical events. It is to be expected, therefore, that these men deny the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.

Perhaps the real reason men hate the Throne of David is because they are Anti-Semitic. They do not want the Messiah to reign on earth over His elect people--both Jews and Gentiles alike--but would like to see Israel cast off forever, that themselves alone may inherit the promises of God. Gavin Finley, M.D., a keen observer on these trends, writes:

"After the Second Coming of Messiah the Throne of David will be established upon this earth. Messiah will both minister and reign in righteousness in the two offices of Melchizedek for a thousand years. This is the coming Millennium of Messiah. The spirit of Belial, or rebellion, hates and loathes His coming rule with a passion. (See King David's song in Psalm 2.) So a hidden spiritual war is being conducted against the Throne of David which is inside the Jewish House of Judah. Evil powers, angelic and human, are targeting Jews, Israelis, Evangelicals, and all who bear testimony to the future rule of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Yeshua Hamashiach our coming Jewish Messiah. This is the root cause and the essential essence of all anti-Semitism. It is a seething hatred against the rulership of the coming "Son of David". This is the real reason for the raging of the Gentiles, the (heathen), against Israel and Jews. This hostility against the Throne of David and the loathing of the message of Messiah's Second Coming is purveyed by wicked men agitated by their dark angels. Their hatred is quite understandable. These ruling powers are short timers. They are in stark terror of the pending judgment they are about to face with the coming of Messiah. This is the quintessential root of all Anti-Semitism whether it be the carefully cloaked acts of high government officials, high church dignitaries, or the more blatant and brutish outrages committed by skinheads and neo-Nazis. The word "Anti-Semitism" is clearly an obfuscation. It is a smokescreen hiding something else. The word is a misnomer designed to mislead the unwary. "Anti-Semitism", at its heart, is really "anti-Throne of David-ism" or "Anti-Messiah-ism". It is, in fact, the "anti-Jewish", "Anti-Judah" arm of the spirit of Anti-Christ."

Do you believe that the Throne of David will be established? Or are you a Gnostic/ subjective Christian? Your own conscience will give you an answer. But however you decide the question, only know that the Lord's promises will not fail, nor will Jesus Christ be accounted a false prophet, as you blindly suppose. Bow down and pay homage to the Lord Jesus Christ. Admit your lies and distortions of His Holy Word. For this a Crusade that is being fought, and the Lord giveth the victory unto them only who keep His faith whole and undefiled.

Early Hyper-Preterist "Scholar" Leaves His Views Behind

"Mr. Desprez afterwards found reason to abandon the views enunciated in his "Apocalyse Fulfilled"
The Apocalypse Fulfilled - Second Oldest Known Hyper- Preterist Book

"He considered the question long and carefully, and at last - though not without severe mental trial - he came to the conclusion that the theory he had held so long, and on the elaboration of which he had spent the best years of his life, was groundless, and must be abandoned."

• 
  

  Richard Acland Armstrong - P.S. Desprez Biography and Explanation of Conversion away from Full Preterism (1880) "This work forms a turning-point in Mr. Desprez's life. Its novelty, which he was not afraid to avow, was less in the general theory than its detailed application. Here the neology became distinct and embarrassing, for the result of his (full preterist) Apocalyptic studies was to change, at least in their speculative and authoritative aspects, all his conceptions of Christian doctrine. Inasmuch as the teaching of Christ and his apostles was entirely directed, according to his opinion, to the " end of the age"—i.e.," The Fall of Jerusalem,"—this event must be accepted as the consummation and conclusion of the original Christianity of the Gospels. The doctrines of the Christian faith had their destined range limited by the same events, and could only possess for after ages a partial and unauthorised significance. This was the standpoint from which Mr. Desprez's confidence in the distinctive dogmas of Evangelicalism first became undermined. His estimate of them related not so much to their inherent truth, or their practical value, as to their validity from the point of view of Christ and his apostles." (Added to Daniel; or, The apocalypse of the Old Testament, The Apocalypse Fulfilled in the Consummation of the Mosaic Economy)

Armstrong, reacting against Desprez's full preterist proposition that the first century church was in a different dispensation than today's: "Inasmuch as the teaching of Christ and his apostles was entirely directed, according to his opinion, to the "end of the age"—i.e.,"The Fall of Jerusalem,"—this event must be accepted as the consummation and conclusion of the original Christianity of the Gospels."

Armstrong, explaining that with broader study Desprez saw errors in his narrow fp focus: "He commenced systematically to read foreign authorities on the subject of his studies. For the first time in his life he read the works of Renan, Colani, Strauss, Hilgenfeld, Langen, and other writers of various schools of thought who had treated the Messianic question. On this occasion, therefore, he approached the subject from a different and broader point of view."

Armstrong, Explaining His Rejection of Full Preterism: "As Mr. Desprez afterwards found reason to abandon the views enunciated in his " Apocalyse Fulfilled," no criticism of them need be here attempted. The defects of his hypothesis as a full and reasoned conception of Christianity are striking and palpable.

• 
  

  It makes no distinction between the standpoint of Christ and that of his apostles on the subject of the Messianic kingdom.



• 
  

  It offers no reason why the predictive powers of Christ, recognised so fully up to A.D. 40, should be limited by that date.



• 
  

  It makes the subsequent history of the Christian Church a riddle baffling solution.
  



• 
  

  It takes no account of the more permanent bases, ethical and spiritual, on which the religion of Christ was really founded, and which alone are adequate to account for its growth.



• 
  

  It overlooks the fact that Second Advent expectations have in reality exercised an inappreciable influence on the growth of Christianity as a whole, their action being generally spasmodic and temporary.

Armstrong, Displaying the irresponsible rush Desprez had made into full preterism, without taking the time to determine its consequences: "If any reader is inclined to ask the question—in what light did Mr. Desprez regard the doctrines of the Christian Church which he professed to teach ? —the answer may be given in his own words. Speaking of the alarm which might be created by his theory that the Second Advent was already past, he says, " It remains to be tried whether the ideas of a finished salvation, a perfected Christianity, an open kingdom of heaven, a life-state in Christ, an eternal reign in an eternal kingdom already set up, might not have a more constraining influence upon mankind than the questionable theory of an uncertain coming."

Armstrong, showing some of the immediate consequences: "the book caused some disquiet among the timid members of his own flock, and this was probably not allayed by the modified tone of Mr. Desprez's pulpit teaching and his gradual adoption of a different standpoint in dealing with Christian dogma. He therefore deemed it expedient to quit Wolverhampton."

1 Corinthians 1: 10: The Hyper-Preterist Version

Below is a recent comment made on a discussion board by Hyper-Preterist Ed Burley. I could not resist publishing these comments to show how Hyper-Preterism has really kept the "unity of the faith."

"We are the absolutely worst cult in the history of the world!!!!

"I mean, take a look at Truth Voice 2008. We screwed up big time. We had the keynote speaker being an advocate of eternal conscious torment, the host as an annihilationist, and a few rabble-rousers who are called "universalists" in the crowd.

"In addition, we had young earth creationists (one actually speaking), old earth creationists, and covenant creationists (also among the speakers). To boot, it seems like I roomed with a theistic evolutionist. Sheesh, the people that are allowed in this cult!

"We had Calvinists, Arminians and quasi-universalists all signing a declaration of support for preterism.

"We had infant baptizers, dunkers, none-baptizers all sitting in the audience.

"We had a guy speaking who thinks that Hades and hospitality have been grossly misunderstood by the general population of Christians over the centuries (and I just heard that he's insane), and some hick from Oklahoma who only wanted to talk about LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE. Talk about cultish!

"There was even a hippie looking guy from the Salvation Army who has the strange idea that God wants us to take care of the poor. And let's not forget that Emergent bunch...

"There was ONE GUY who actually claimed that the author of the books of John was actually LAZARUS. Can you believe that?"

***

Ed, I believe it with all my heart. To view the entire quote, go to: http://planetpreterist.com/news-5478.html#cmnts

Hyper-Preterism's "No Win" Argument

On a recent blog post at Jason Bradfield's "Sovereign Grace Preterism," Sam Frost attempted to discredit the position recently taken by Roderick Edwards and myself--namely, that the true historic faith has been preserved for us in the historic creeds and confessions.

By adducing statements from some of the Reformed confessions, which "damn" Chiliasm, he purposes to show that by Roderick's own standards he must condemn me, or I must condemn him--something to that effect. This is known as the "divide and conquer" ploy used by Preterists.

Of course, we mustn't forget that the Fundamental Baptists routinely "damn" those who believe in the doctrines of grace. Yet Sam would not dare allege that because of their disapproval the doctrines are invalidated.

Really, we must ask, what is the historic truth of the matter? Are these doctrines found having historical continuity throughout all ages of Christianity? If so, why would some later anathema issued by an Arminian church have any effect on the validity of the doctrines on which Sam bases his soteriology?

In his enthusiasm to combat the truth, Sam forgets that there are at least four known Millennial positions within the ranks of his camp. Does a Pre-Millennial Preterist like Duncan McKenzie get excluded from posting at Planet Preterist?

Then, too, what is the exact status of Kurt Simmons, a Bi-Millennialist? Surprisingly, Kurt is a good friend of Sam, which even he (Sam) admits. So, according to Frost, the Millennium is not a standard of fellowship.

Do we believe in the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit? If so, we must recognize some kind historical continuity of the true faith.

Consider the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. This has been challenged repeatedly throughout Christian history. Modern liberals have concurred that it is a fable. So, if I find some perverted denial of the Virgin Birth, written in the 1970's, will I succeed in invalidating the historic and orthodox teaching? God forbid! Then how do Sam and Jason propose to do the same thing when it comes to doctrines such as the Second Coming, Resurrection, and Judgment?

According to them, it is not classic truth that matters so much as the newfangled inventions of men. The latest flavor of the week gets preference over centuries-old understanding of the Scriptures. And these folks have the nerve to complain against their Universalist "brethren."

Let us quote from Sam Frost, so that everyone can read his implicit denial of the ministry of the Spirit: "Where did the Spirit go wrong when chilasm was damned? Where did the Spirit go wrong when John the Apostle told an elder who told Papias, who told Polycarp, who told Ireneaus that chilasm was right? Did the Spirit go wrong when Augustine and Eusebius condemned chilasm? Did the Spirit go wrong when to major Confessions damned it?"

Sam's argument is that, because of minor differences, all the major points of agreement must be brushed aside. By Sam's rule, I suppose that, because of the different Millennial views within the H.P. camp, their unanimous agreement on past fulfillment will be negated. But if to do so would be absurd, then it is equally absurd to suggest that 2,000 years of orthodox agreement can be relegated to the trash-bin.

If we consider the points of difference among Christians, we must consider their points of coincidence as well. All evidence must enter into our final calculation. If this principle would apply in any worldly tribunal, then how much more among the professed people of God? But that is not their way.

It is therefore no surprise to find Sam's pupil, Jason Bradfield, also casting doubts on the operative work of the Holy Spirit. Bradfield writes: "Where is this so-called "providential protection" at in the fact that according to many, amillennialism is probably the most dominant view? Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep when amill and postmill crept in?" This kind of irreverence is typical of those who embrace heresy. However, some of us have more reverence when it comes to the ministry of the Comforter.

My answer to these gentlemen is this: If the truths of eschatology cannot be found anywhere in the history of the church, then there is no need to look for them now, nor at any future time. I think this is what Jason would call a "logical necessity."

Will these Hyper-Prets continue to cuddle up to the liberals and emergents, as they're now doing? I think so. And one day we'll catch them in a pretty "group hug" with the Universalists and covenantal creationists. This is certainly "going far." But as one of their more 'progressive' revisionists has already said: "Where I am today is not where I'll be tomorrow."

Enjoy the ride, fellas!

How Bridges Get Burned

Brian,

Leave me alone. Don't email me anymore. Opening the phone lines after the show to allow people to comment is not unethical. The entire reason i did not open them during the show is because YOU explicitly asked for just you and me. I am the one that changed the normal format to meet YOUR conditions. Any other time, i invite people to call in and interact with us and any guests.

I'm sick of it Brian. You and Rod are CONSTANTLY distorting what exactly
happened. You call what we did an "interrogation"? Are you serious? Even you
admitted that i did very little talking.

Leave me alone Brian. Don't email me anymore. Email me again and i'll report
you. I'm saving this and any future stuff and will take legal action if i have
to.

Jason

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Brian Simmons <> wrote:

Jason,

I am not mocking or ridiculing you. If you listen to Roderick
Edwards' recent podcast, you'll find I cut you quite a bit of slack in
light the comments you made on the after-show. Yes, forgiving our
enemies is important. But it is equally important to defend sound
doctrine, and to rebuke sharply those who depart from the faith.
Under normal circumstances I would not try so hard to convince you of
these things. But remember, we are called to be "ministers of the new
covenant." If you received a charge to preach Christ's Gospel, you
must keep it. You have no other choice.

"I charge thee therefore before God, and the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His
appearing and His kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, out
of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine"
(2 Tim. 4: 1-2).

Peace and Health,

Brian

----- Original Message -----

From:

Jason Bradfield

To:

Brian Simmons

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:05 AM

Subject: Re: quotes & misquotes

Brian,



I'll respond this once and very briefly, but this will probably be it.
I have better things to do.

• Why is it that you'll refuse to go live with Sam but then turn
  around and take these little pot shots at Sam in email? I think i
  know why: Control. It's easy to turn Sam off and on in email....hard
  to do on a live show. You need to make up your mind what you wanna
  do. If you want to debate Sam, then set up a debate. But don't play
  this childish hit and run game with emails.



• Your argument about the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit
  refutes itself in that you argue for an eschatological relativism
  based on very broad ecumenical creeds that are near worthless in
  determining a correct eschatology. Sam and I believe that there is
  one correct Biblical eschatology. You hold up three.



• Where is this so-called "providential protection" at in the fact
  that according to many, amillennialism is probably the most
  dominant view? Did the Holy Spirit fall asleep when amill and
  postmill crept in?
  
  

You make a big deal about the millennium and ask if that is all
the ammo we have. First of all, there was no "we" in the program
last night, remember Brian? Brian, do you remember that you asked
for Sam not to be there? Hello? There was "me." Secondly, you
COMPLETELY twisted my point. Do you think i am so dumb as to think
that amill is not considered "orthodoxy"? Of course it is! Duh. That
wasn't my point. YOU were actually the one that kept bringing the
millennium into it as if the only difference between amills and
premills is the millennium. That is NOT the ONLY difference. Stop
twisting my words Brian.

• As far as your "2,000 years of CHristian teaching" bit,
  actually, you don't adhere to 2,ooo years of Christian teaching. You
  adhere to a very small strand that claims premill is the apostolic
  doctrine. You only adhere to what you want to adhere to. That's why
  when i brought up the few items i did last night regarding ECFs that
  would disagree with your views, you have to resort back to this very
  generic, meaningless cry of "embrace orthodoxy, embrace orthodoxy."
  You keep saying "2,ooo years...2,ooo years", yet when i bring up
  contemporary scholarship from orthodox men (like Gentry), you whine
  that you don't need it. See, you don't adhere to 2,ooo years of
  development, you adhere to a few 3 or 4 guys from the first 200
  years....basically those who confirm your preconceived ideas about a
  ridiculous thousand year earthly reign of Jesus.



• No Brian...chiliasm is not well tested. It is false doctrine and
  nonsense and it is because you realize that a MAJOR VOICE within
  ORTHODOXY would contest your false eschatology that you don't have
  the guts to proclaim it as the sole orthodox eschatological system
  and instead opt for this relativistic - let's just embrace 3
  contradictory views - nonsense.



• You claim that because so and so knew so and so, they must have
  transmitted things correctly. Paul's own epistles tell us that his
  own students got things wrong. Brian, even you posted a quote about
  Chuck that wasn't even his original quote...you just blindly cut and
  pasted it from Scott over at PreteristHeresy without even checking
  the source. You made a major blunder involving only two guys that
  live the same time you do; yet you're telling me that man could not
  have made a mistake in what he believed had been passed down prior
  to his lifetime back in a time when communication was not as
  advanced. Do you believe Jesus lived to be over 40 years old?
  Interestingly, you don't even touch the rest of Sam's blog.
  
  



• Lastly, i don't find much use in debating this with you anymore
  because 99% of time you don't even present Preterism as i believe.
  Like Roderick, you grab the wackiest folks within the movement and
  lump us all as one. You did this with the universalism bit, you did
  this with the antinomian bit, you did this with "truth is relative"
  bit, you did this with the "what now?" bit, and so on. Face it
  Brian, the preterism you were taught was bad and now you're blaming
  me for it. You're not even battling me....you're battling some "preterist"
  view out there that you made up in your head and doesn't even
  represent my position. I can point this out with almost everything
  you said last night...so what does that leave in your hour +
  presentation?....Very little.

I'm not interested Brian. Find someone else to bug. There are
plenty of good, solid, well-respected orthodox scholars out there that
i would rather spend my time reading than going back and forth with
you only to eventually have you resort to ad homs when you get
cornered...it's a waste of my time.

Sure, someone like a Gordon Clark might of had big problems with my
view, but at least i get some solid material from him. At least he
doesn't gloss over church history and paint it all nice and neat. At
least he is honest to admit the difficulties. At least he didn't
flip-flop every week, going from partial pret to full pret to
universalist to idealist to amill to chiliast to who knows what's next
tomorrow.

Brian, if God is going to use someone to return me to "orthodoxy",
it's not going to be you. I'll look elsewhere.



jason

What Warfare Entails

Christian warfare sometimes involves taking hits from those who are hypocritical enough to use Christ's name to support their heresies. The current rage against sound orthodoxy has only strengthened my position against the spiritual wickedness with which we must contend. In a recent live discussion with Jason Bradfield of "Reign of Christ Ministries," he and I spoke on the topic of Hyper-Preterism. I pointed out to him that Hyper-Preterism is a heresy that has absolutely no historical support. I asked him to look at the evidence, and to weigh the probabilities of such a system being true.

Although he failed entirely to defend his position, he now has the chutzpah to claim that I am being "inconsistent," and endorsing "Three different views of eschatology." What he is really doing is twisting my position in which I clearly stated that the Millennium is not a ground of Biblical orthodoxy. There isn't a single creed or confession that preserves the correct doctrine of the Millennium. Therefore, honest differences of opinion must be allowable within the rule of faith. If you listen to our podcast you will hear me state this position again and again. Then hear how many times Jason brings up the topic of the Millennium. His is a losing battle.

It is evident that the Hyper-Preterist position is getting weaker every day. I took my best shot, and did some serious damage. Now it's 'rest up' time, as the "pity party" sends forth ambulances with kind words and soothing ointments. "Just believe in Jesus, Jason." Of course, it doesn't make any difference to them whether you believe in the correct system of Christ's teachings or not. According to their view, all the martyrs that ever went to the stake died in vain. For they could have believed just "any ol' thang" and been saved. Perhaps when we do get to heaven, Simon Magus will waddle forth to greet us. Wouldn't that be something?

In no way are these people being reverent when they allege that the Holy Spirit withheld His teaching influence for 2,000 years. Where is their Biblical support for this view? Also, if 2,000 years of Christian teachers were mistaken on eschatology, then can these folks prove that they are correct? As a matter of fact, they can't. Or if they do, they must kindly ask God to now resume His throne after such a long vacancy.

Dear Saints: Paul warned us that perilous times would come (2 Tim. 3: 1); affirming that, "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4: 1). He warned us to beware of divers doctrines, and said "Brethren, be ye followers of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample" (Phil. 3: 17). Make no mistake, friends. These people are not following the Christianity of the New Testament. Can their faith save them? Will heresy bear out their professions? Will their novel errors prevail over the true teachings of 2,000 years? God forbid! On the contrary, the truth will break the teeth of this system. And Christian warfare entails riding out to battle every day. Onward to victory!

"This Generation" Continues!

There is a wealth of meaning in the phrase "this generation," which Hyper-Preterists completely overlook. Because of their flat, one-dimensional method of exegesis, they fail to perceive the spiritual truths which our Lord is unfolding for the edification of His elect.

In our last article, we showed that Matt. 24: 34 does not mean that all things in Christ's Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before the men living at that time passed away. Our Lord was speaking to Peter, James, John, and Andrew--the founders of His church. Likewise, when He declared woes against the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23), He was referring to the warfare that would be waged between the two seeds, or spiritual nations, into which all mankind are divided.

Read the following verses carefully. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill, and crucify, and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation" (Matt. 24: 33-36).

Incredibly, Hyper-Preterists have thought that this must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. But a bit of sober reflection will tell us this isn't the case at all. Our Lord is alluding to the original curse pronounced upon the serpent in the Garden of Eden. "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. 3: 15).

This warfare would culminate in the crucifixion of Christ. However, it extends from Calvary in both directions, having its start at the beginning of the world, and its closure at the world's end. It has continued to this very day, and cannot be restricted to the destruction of Jerusalem, without destroying the most sublime moral & spiritual truths of the Gospel.

Is our Lord really saying that those particular men to whom He spoke would be held accountable for "all the righteous blood shed upon the earth"? The view is nonsensical, to say the least. Rather, He teaches that the blood of the righteous will be required of the wicked. And this is understood in a universal context. For Christ points us back to the Noachian covenant: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man" (Gen. 9: 5).

The Noachian covenant is worldwide, and is still in effect today! For its sign is the "bow in the cloud" (Gen. 9: 13). Rainbows are universal. As the covenant, then, is still in effect, then its warnings cannot have been exhausted in the destruction of Jerusalem. For according to the principle expounded by Paul, the abolition of a later covenant has no power to fulfill an earlier one (Galatians 3: 17). Therefore, the destruction of the temple cannot fulfill resurrection or judgment.

Now, Peter called the church a "chosen generation" (1 Peter 2: 9). And Paul, addressing the same church, writes: "Do all things without murmurings and disputings: that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2: 14-15).

This brings to mind Peter's exhortation, when he said: "Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (Acts 2: 40). What Christ and his holy apostles were teaching is simply this: that the church is a chosen generation which must remain separate and distinct from the generation of the wicked. The term "generation" is meant to denote the offspring of a common moral stock. It bears a spiritual sense, which must be perceived ere we can understand the true meaning of our Savior's message.

In the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), Our Savior declares that His saints shall be called to endure persecution at the hands of the wicked. However, the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church. His promise to uphold "this generation" sounds a note of triumph over the final defeat of that "generation of vipers" at whose hand all the righteous blood shed upon earth will be required. The ongoing struggle is seen in Rev. 12, where the dragon goes out to make war with the seed of the woman.

To restrict such fulfillment to the events of A.D. 70 results in Universalism, for it teaches that the wrath of God has already been exhausted, and therefore can no longer be applied to the enemies of God. But if we simply keep in mind the true meaning of the term "this generation" (Matt. 23: 36) all difficulties will be cleared up. It is the generation of evil-doers to whom our Lord is speaking; and he sets these grievous woes over against special promises offered to the saints: that the people of God, while called to lay down their lives, will ultimately prevail through their Savior JESUS CHRIST. With these thoughts in mind, let us look forward to His victory over all the nations of the world. Hallelujah!

*****

Note: for more on the Biblical meaning of the phrase "this generation," see Tony Warren's excellent article at:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml