Hyperpreterist Honesty

[Dee Dee Warren]

Original here.

Particularly considering some of the bizarre rants that are going on at PreteristCosmos lately, I have been asked why I have a particular respect for David Green. First, Dave has been a cordial and kind friend to me personally, but that is not why I have held him in particular esteem. It certainly isn’t for everything he says, particularly lately. It is my opinion that David has become much more circumspect on his forthright admissions now that he has entrenched himself even more firmly by co-authoring House Divided. You can often find that many people are much more honest when they are more obscure and frankly don’t give a rat’s booty about being popular or politically correct within their movement. David, in a response to Keith Mathison, said this (I don’t have the exact date of this statement since the original article is no longer at David’s site, or if it is, it is in a different location that I cannot locate, but it is earlier than 2005 and later than 2001):

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

David from that point on earned major credibility in my eyes, for he is absolutely correct, and he wasn’t scared to say it. Back at that time, I was also saying to the hyperpreterists who kept attempting to evangelize me to their view that such a result would be the last thing they wanted because I wouldn’t be frightened or dishonest enough to pretend like it was just another view that should be accepted within the established Church.

David though has tried to distance himself from that comment when in fact it should be emblazoned on the cover of House Divided.
This brings me to another hyperpreterist who’s recent comments I have found very honest: Bryan Lewis. On his Facebook page, Bryan wrote:

First, concerning Sola Scriptura. When so-called “Reformed” FPist complain against creeds an Orthodoxy it is both embarrassing and naive, because they do not understand their own supposed Reformed position. When I was Reformed, I never believed the creeds were infallible, but I understood Sola Scriptura to mean that the doctrines contained in the creeds are the doctrines of scripture, and therefore the doctrines are deemed infallible and authoritative, because they come from God. I shared this on Sam’s site: When I came to FPism, I immediately saw the inconsistency of those who did not realize that “FPism is a clear denial of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church - thus a denial of God’s sovereignty. Like others, I also quickly tried to appeal to Sola Scriptura!” However, I had been taught as Berkof had said, the “No creed but the Bible” mentality is “a virtual denial of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the past history of the church.” (Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, 32). … I shared the following on Sam’s site: “So here I stood having to deal with the remarkable idea that the entire church came through A. D. 70 and missed the proper understanding of the eschaton - not realizing it had already been resurrected! In addition, following generations had no idea what had just taken place! I had to ask myself, “Bryan, had the entire Christian church missed the basic understanding of Christian eschatology for its first 2000 years?” What ultimately made me say yes, was my Christian Origin classes at SCU. I came away having a hard time seeing how God was sovereign through the process of development and continual reform in the theological history of the church. Throughout 2000 years of church theology there have been many debates, conflicts, and even deaths over fairly minor points of doctrine. There have been many burnings, drownings and beheadings of people judged to be heretics. I came to see church history as a period of theological speculation, not God sovereignly working within his people. A period in which those who won the publicity campaign wrote doctrine (orthodox vs gnostics). I could not paint an optimistic picture of church history after studying ECF’s and Christian Origins, especially, the first 300 years - though I tried. This has now drove my interest away from FPism and toward Christian Origins, NT Textual Criticism, and the Historical Jesus. If it weren’t for this line of study, I might have returned to orthodoxy like Sharon, Minna, Birks and others. (now Sam and Jason).” Like Eusebius who first had a providential view of church history, I tried, but unlike him I was Not able to paint a rather optimistic picture of Christianity’s first 300 years. In addition, virtually all FPist believe in inerrancy, preservation, dynamic inspiration and or(some) verbal plenary inspiration. I struggle with these because of Textual Critical issues. If I believe in anything at this point it is Natural Inspiration the idea that God had nothing to do with the New Testament and that its authors were only inspired in the same sense that Shakespeare was inspired to write Hamlet. Therefore, I have come to believe that I am also Not compatible with the FPist movement. I believe things like; scribes, in areas of the manuscripts, altered the words to make them more patently orthodox. I have come to see the manuscripts as a document copied by living human beings who were deeply rooted in the controversies of their day. In other words, the New Testament as a deeply human book. If I could get over this hurdle and the hurdle of Church history, then I would most likely return to orthodoxy. What needs to be shown to me is God’s sovereign hand working in the church for 2000 years. I do not see it. Derrell, To answer your questions: 1] I do Not believe the Holy Spirit has been the guiding hand of the church throughout the centuries. I wish I did, but I don’t. If one is a FPist, they do not either - whether they admit it or not.

Emphasis mine. Note: Bryan uses FP, and I have not altered his terminology though I object to it.

He is referring to hyperpreterism by its whitewashed-tomb name.

[TyRockwell]

I am sad for Bryan that he does not see or believe that the Holy Spirit has been "the guiding hand" of the church through the centuries. I understand how some would feel that way, seeing so much powerlessness, division, and blood-letting sectarian warfare in the church. It isn't that the Holy Spirit hasn't been guiding, but that believers have mostly not followed. Jesus said, "The sower sows the Word," in Mark 4. Those seeds were not the whole word of God, but they were the seeds of the kingdom from (of) heaven. The Church did not start out as fully mature trees bearing much fruit. Granted, there were numbers of mature trees in the apostles and writers of the New Testament, but there was not the extent that the world and nature needed, yet. Jesus' words and the Acts and the epistles and Revelation were SEEDS that would grow in the well-watered soil of believers' hearts and minds and spirits. In some, a few believers, their soil was good and produced good fruit. But God's purpose is many [mature] sons coming into glory, that is, demonstrating the fullness of the stature of Christ.
By not listening, learning and following the Holy Spirit's guidance, the night came, when no one could work, except the very few. Even for them, the word was a lamp to their feet and a light to their path, their short-term vision. Finally, men started listening again, to the Spirit's guiding, teaching, revealing work in them. It was almost like a resuscitation from nearly dead. And with the new ears to hear and eyes to see, the Church has been making astonishing leaps in growth and revelation knowledge into renewed empowerment, but on a far larger and wider world-wide scale than was in the first two or three centuries of the Church. This is not to diminish those who kept the flame of the fire of the Holy Spirit going and spreading during the darkest ages that they struggled through. The Holy Spirit was always there with them, but religious thinking and rules made by men kept the light dim, not bright.
Now, through the ever growing numbers of Holy Spirit taught and anointed believers, the Church is in a far better circumstasnce in far more places in the earth than were the apostles and Seeds of the Church.
Go ahead, call it 'so spiritual,' or call it gnosticism. But, it is real. Most denominations don't know it, and don't have these things which are gifts to mature sons of God; things that the early stage seedlings could not yet bear. Mostly, these free gifts are flourishing where they are not bound by tradition and stifled by closed minds, while denominations are stagnant. If you are not seeing the Church growing in power and knowledge, consider changing churches, or at least, the channel. Find a spirit-filled, non-denominational church where people are joyful and convinced by the Holy Spirit by all that He has done, and is doing among them.