This discussion is really a non-starter because you begin with reductionist questioning — “What is the Church?”

Martin Luther & the other Reformers did NOT depart from the historic Christian Church but only from that present manifesation called the Roman Catholic Church. I know hyperpreterists like to equate themselves with being Reformers as if each is a mini-Martin Luther but Luther would be appalled at how you behave. You don’t just reject errors that have crept in but you reject the whole concept of the historic Christian Church — even now questioning, “What is the Church?”. No sir, hyperpreterists are NOT theological heirs of the Reformation but rather more the offspring of the Restoration Era, (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) where those groups claimed the true Church had been lost & the true Gospel lost & needed “restoring”. From this group comes everything from the denomination of “church of Christ” to the Mormons, to the JWs, to the Pentecostals.

It then is not surprising that hyperpreterism first rose within the denomination of “church of Christ” with Max King who were already prime for rejecting the concept of “the Church” — after all, according to them “the Church” had fallen into apostasy so we can just ignore anything “the Church” has said UNLESS it agrees with our private interpretation.

Your attempt to somehow claim that the true concept of the kingdom was “lost” & had to be restored by Jesus is patently false. If you understood typology you would see that it has always been God’s methodology to use the type-antitype to reveal His plans. Of course God used the physical to manifest the spiritual. Adam the first created human to manifest Jesus the last Adam, the first life giving spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)

Some of the Jews simply wanted to cling to the type & did not want to see the revelation & fufillment. God did NOT fail to preserve the teaching from the OT to the New. As a matter of fact, I submit many of those who desired the death of Jesus knew exactly what they were rejecting…they killed the “Landowner’s” son in hopes of inheriting the “kingdom” for themselves (see Mt 21:33-46 — http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2021:33-46%20;&version=50 But in your version of events God somehow allowed them to lapse into ignorance.

Next, you mock God’s sovereignty saying He is “not a control freak” yet the God I see displayed in the Bible is not merely a God who “knows things” ahead of time, but has actually DECLARED the end from the beginning — (Isa 46:10), He is the God that calls His people to REPENT (change who they were into what He as the potter fashions them to be — sounds rather freakisly “controlling”). He is the God who wants His people to have the “mind of Christ” rather than their own mind. And yet you mock this???

You speak of “faithfulness” but your version of it is vague. Faith is not some mere “blind leap”, a mere “wish” & hope but faith as the Bible depicts it is FIDELITY, as a partner is FAITHFUL to the other. Faith as the Bible exclaims is CERTAINTY & SURETY:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. — Hebrews 11:1

How in the world can anyone be “faithful” without knowing & understanding His ways..as much as His ways are revealed to us through Scripture? Your version of “faith” is vague & unbiblical at worst.

Your issue with 2 Pet 1:19-21 reveals perhaps more than you intend, for if you assume this only deals with how Scripture was brought about then no wonder so many hyperpreterists are content to claim their may be yet unknown Scripture to which we might appeal. Rather, 2 Pet 1:19-21 is both about the transmission of Scripture AND the interpretation thereof — as it does indeed say “no private INTERPRETATION” — yet hyperpreterists set themselves up as almost modern day prophets who have found the true meaning of the Scripture — all in contrast against 2000 years of the historic Church’s interpretation of Scripture. Now THAT is arrogant.

I often hear people use this notion that it is false to prescribe “guilt by association” but I have been questioning that objection — after all it is by our association with Adam that we have been made guilty though we did not sin “according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam” (Rom 11:12-15) And yet it is also by our association with Christ that we are declared innocent — both situations completely without our own input into the matter (freakishly controlling God at work again). Guilt or innocence by association is NOT an “invalid argument” but is the Biblical argument.

How dare you attempt to equate what hyperpreterism advocates with what the Reformers were advocating. The Reformers did not depart from historic Christianity but even solidified their reliance upon it by immediately penning a plethra of confessions confirming the long held beliefs of the Church.

You sir, & the hyperpreterists with you have become something radically outside the scope of historic Christianity. You are not “reformers” you are rebels that make up your rules as you go.

1. You must completely disconnect from historic Christianity — so much so that you are willing to say the Church has been wrong on eschatology for over 2000 years.

What is this “the Church” you’re talking about? You’re Reformed: you don’t think “the Church” in toto was wrong on some things throughout the Middle Ages?

2. You must be willing to say that for whatever reason, God & the Holy Spirit were not able to preserve the teaching of Jesus & the apostles (as if soon after AD70 people forgot)

If you are a Christian, you must be willing to say that for whatever reason, God & the Holy Spirit were not able to preserve the teaching of the Old Testament prophets on the nature of the Kingdom and the Messiah’s reign (as if after Isaiah people forgot). If it’s about God’s ability, then God was manifestly incapable of providing us with just one incorruptible manuscript of His Scriptures or with keeping the Church from error prior to the Reformers.

But it’s not about His ability. Could it possibly be that God, although sovereign, is not a control freak like some people are? Should we think less of Him if He did not provide an explicit and exhaustive list of truths for us to join in lock-step with? Could we, like the Catholic Church, be wrong when we demand for Him to have already done so? Could it be that He really is more interested in our faithfulness to Him than our understanding of all His ways?

3. You must be willing to pretend that “Sola Scriptura” actually means SOLO Scriptura where you become a “private interpreter” (see 2 Pet 1:19-21)

Unfortunately, that phrase as you use it is completely and utterly out of context from 2 Peter 1. He was referring to the trustworthiness of prophecy. “Private interpretation” clearly refers not the hearer/reader of Scripture, but to the prophets’ ability to screw up what God told Him between his reception of the prophecy and his proclamation of it.

4. You must be willing to become something that is nothing like anything in historic Christianity — not even the worst of the worst heresies advocated the kind of things hyperpreterists advocate.

I have heard rumors that some are universalists; that some believe homosexuality is normative for Christians; that some have little to no regard for Scripture; that some are evolutionists; that some are unitarians; that some are even Pelagians! And I’m just talking about non-preterists Guilt by association is an invalid argument. Which of your non-eschatological “heresies” do you attribute to Sam Frost or Don Preston, for instance? Do you really think these guys are marginal in the preterist community?

People who know me recognize that I hold the views of tother believers (even dead ones!) as highly valuable and that these views are disregarded out-of-hand only to our peril. Yet one of the Church’s historic stands is that Scripture comes first in the pecking order; Church tradition never trumps sound biblical exegesis. If I believe Scripture clearly teaches something and historic Christianity denies it, I will question my belief because it would be arrogant not to, but in the end, I affirm prima scriptura and do not allow the mob of Church tradition to deter me. Neither did Martin Luther. “Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders.”

Many of my former friends & associates within hyperpreterism are clamoring for my to posit an alternative. They want me to give a name to a position. I think they mainly desire this so that they can reference what they want to critique. I don’t have a name for it other than basic Christianity. If you look at the early church theologians & the Reformed theologians, you will see they too saw the destruction of Jerusalem as significant insofar as it represented the “taking of the kingdom & giving it to those who bear the fruit of it” — not merely the Gentiles, but true sons of Abraham, which were ALWAYS those by faith anyway. The fulfillment theology, if that is a term you’d like is fulfilled in Christ — As it says in Gal 3:16 — the promise was made to Abraham & his Seed, not “seeds” & the Seed is Christ Jesus. In Him are the promises fulfilled. I was attempting to refute both dispensationalism AND hyperpreterism but referring to fulfillment.

As a former “full preterist” of 15 years let me tell you what you must
do if you want to believe hyperpreterism:

1. You must completely disconnect from historic Christianity — so
much so that you are willing to say the Church has been wrong on
eschatology for over 2000 years.
2. You must be willing to say that for whatever reason, God & the Holy
Spirit were not able to preserve the teaching of Jesus & the apostles
(as if soon after AD70 people forgot)
3. You must be willing to pretend that “Sola Scriptura” actually means
SOLO Scriptura where you become a “private interpreter (see 2 Pet
1:19-21 — http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:19-21;&vers...)
4. You must be willing to become something that is nothing like
anything in historic Christianity — not even the worst of the worst
heresies advocated the kind of things hyperpreterists advocate.

After you succumb to hyperpreterism’s premise (which again will
require at least the 4 things above), then you will start to speculate
on everything. You may claim like other prominent hyperpreterists
that there was a 1st century rapture that took all true Christians
away, leaving only “second-rank” Christians (no wonder hyperpreterists
can so easily dismiss the historic Church) (see source:
http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id46.html) Or perhaps you will
embrace another side-effect of hyperpreterism, where they look at
Genesis & turn it all into a metaphor for Israel — claiming that it
doesn’t speak about creating the planet & the universe at all. That
Adam wasn’t the first created human, but merely the first “covenantal
man”. (see source: http://beyondcreationscience.com)

You see, once you buy into the premise, it unlocks further & further
degradation of your faith until perhaps someday you find yourself not
even really a Christian, but instead more proud to call yourself by
some other name — such as “preterist”.

In Christ & His Church (the same Church against which Jesus said even
the gates of hades would not prevail)
Roderick

I also started reading the Mathison book again. I never did finish it as I just did not have time, and the preterist view just frustrated me, so I just dropped the research all together. Mostly because it was just one friend that I knew that had this view, and still does, and it was not something that was becoming wide spread in our church. By the way we are having coffee tomorrow, which we have not done in years, because he was so over bearing, and arrogant with his preterist position I just stopped talking with him. But now he is much more humble, and even asked me to forgive him for his attitude and approach.

Reading your blog, did spark an interest again, so thanks I think. But still facing the same problem, TIME – ugh. Your blog actually caused me to reconnect with my preterist friend, so for that I do thank you.

Your connection between AD 70 and the imagery of John 15 is an intriguing one; I’ll want to spend some time thinking about that.

From reading a little bit of your websites, I know you’ve been wrestling with what to call your revised, post-preterist eschatological position; is “fulfillment theology” your term or is that referencing a preexisting system of thought?

I’d love to swap impressions of the WSTTB when you are finished.

As for preterism, hyper or otherwise — I can see a little why people would be put off. The word is rather artificial. If you look back on many of the great Reformed theologians & many of the “early Church fathers” you will notice many of them seen a connection of the destruction of Jerusalem with the “taking of the kingdom & giving it to those who bear the fruit of it” (no, not “replacement theology” — but fulfillment theology). This concept seems to have been lost under the rise & weight of dispensationalism & its false notion of God’s love for genetic Israel.

What I’m trying to say is that some of the most profound thinkers/believers within Christian history have understood many of the concepts that are now called “preterist” & all without even using that term. Might I suggest it is just normative Christianity to see some connection with the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple & the putting off of those who sat in “Moses Seat” (Mt 23:3), that was about to forever be replaced by the Throne of Christ. It is not novel. It is not some newly fabricated theology that requires a new name (not that the word preterist/preterism is new). It is just plain old Christianity being what it is.

Let me know if you get “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”. I was thinking about forming a reading group based around the book.

As one who grew up in a church at least somewhat associated with Church of Christ, my memories are shaped more by the absence of any historical Christian framework than the active promotion of “No creed but Christ”. Creeds and liturgy simply didn’t exist. There was no confirmation class. Nothing to provide a broader understanding of “the church” more than the New Testament and our specific church body. I’m finding that gap now to be appalling as I wrestle with theological topics within the tradition of orthodox Christianity.

Ironically, I’m a few chapters in on Mathison’s hyper-preterism book and, if anything, it’s causing me to doubt preterism as a whole, not just hyper-preterism. Kim Riddlebarger was correct in saying that the article on the testimony of the first/second century church really challenges any view that sees primary fulfillment in AD 70. I will want to go back to reread Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell to get his perspective on these witnesses.

What seems to happen is that an individual or groups (such as the Anabaptists, church of Christ, Pentecostals…) think that “Sola Scriptura” is a license to become private interpreters (2 Pet 1:19-21). They will bluster about how they have “No creed but Christ” but then immediately tell you what they “believe” & don’t “believe”. — the word credo simply means “belief”. Everyone has a “creed”.

What we believe should match both the Scriptures AND the historic Christian Church as whole. If we somehow disconnect ourselves from either of these anchors, we run the risk of becoming true heretics or true “creedalist” — both groups destroy faith.

Another book to add to your reading list (also by Mathison) is The Shape of Sola Scriptura — http://www.amazon.com/Shape-Sola-Scriptura-Keith-Mathison/dp/1885767749

READ MORE: http://thekingdomcome.com/mathison_responses