Jason Bradfield Story: Analysis of an Ex-Heretic | The Kingdom Come

First, when people hear the word "heretic" or "heresy" they often feel some pity or sympathy for the person being called a heretic. Perhaps it is human nature to feel sorry for and root for the underdog. But is there EVER a right time to describe something as a heresy and the person advocating it a heretic?

To start, we must define what we mean by heresy. In the Christian sense, heresy is NOT simply something that goes against the teaching of those in control. Again, people often visualize the "big bad institutional church" forcing people to believe what the institution is teaching or else be labelled a heretic. However, to correctly define heresy we must decouple ourselves from the idea that the "church" is corrupt and trying to impose beliefs on the poor "followers". This wrong idea, may be a misunderstanding of Protestantism, where a person envisions themselves as a "little Martin Luther" taking on the Roman Catholic Church.

DEFINITION OF HERESY

The text in the Bible that perhaps most succinctly defines heresy is Romans 16:17-18.

"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple."

Note the elements of heresy:

1. Causes divisions and offenses
2. Is contrary to learned doctrine

The question is, WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE THAT WAS LEARNED?
Is it simply whatever is dominant at the time? There were times in Church history where anti-trinitarian views were dominant. Even now, it seems that synergism (freewillism) is currently dominant whereas for most of Christian history, monergism (God's Elect) was the doctrine taught within the Church.

So, even if someone agrees that the most minimal definition of heresy is that it is contrary to doctrine learned by Christians everywhere, THROUGHOUT Christian history -- now we must figure out what BASIC elements within Christianity are common from the very beginning of the Faith until now. Determining that, we can at LEAST say that whatever goes against those BASIC elemental beliefs, is really heresy. Agreed?

This brings us to the subject of this article; Jason Bradfield.
Bradfield, like myself WAS a long time "full" or "hyperpreterist" -- advocating that Jesus came back once and for all in AD70, the Resurrection happened in AD70, the Judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in AD70, and there will be no end of sin or culmination of God's plan. Obviously not all hyperpreterists are consistent on these beliefs, but some variation of these beliefs are found within the heresy.

Bradfield recanted the heresy of hyperpreterism in late 2010 (ref), 3 years after I had recanted it. In the intervening 3 years, I have had to put up with a lot of hostility from the hyperpreterists, including Bradfield. But what is amazing now is Bradfield is saying ALMOST the exact same things I had been saying the past 3 years. I don't note this to pat myself on the back but to give glory to God. There have been a few FALSE recanters of the heresy (ie Dorothy Anderson), but from what Bradfield is saying, his recantation seems legitimate.

Among other heresy-deconstructing things recently written by Bradfield is a letter he wrote to a person questioning how he was able to get out of the heresy (ref).

It is this letter that I'd like to analyze. I will quote parts of the letter and comment but I encourage the reader to go read the entire letter before you continue.

ANALYSIS

Bradfield first informs us of his relevancy within the hyperpreterist movement and why it should matter to anyone that he has recanted the heresy. He mentions all the various Internet outlets he helped to create.

"For those of you who don’t know me, i embraced the full pret framework (all prophecy was fulfilled by ad70) in late 2002 and went on to aid Sam Frost as the techie guy behind Christ Covenant Church, which turned into RCM, as well as formed SGP, which is still one of the most active full pret social networks around. I’m still with RCM, but left SGP over a year ago. I have also created the current sites for Ward Fenley’s NCMI, Jim Kessler, and Michael Sullivan. I came close to becoming Don Preston’s new webmaster as well after Scott left, but that didn’t work out. (i don’t even remember why) I only mention all of this because some have tried to easily dismiss my renouncement of full preterismⁱ by pointing out how i was not a major player to begin with. Ah, that may be true. But they certainly didn’t think so when i was helping them out."

I agree, Bradfield was not a light-weight within the movement. It is a typical tactic of hyperpreterists to dismiss ex-hyperpreterists as irrelevant. This was done to me, even though I was the most prolific author on the main hyperpreterist website; PlanetPreterist. It has been done to Todd Dennis who has amassed the largest archive of preterist and hyperpreterist materials at his website, PreteristArchive.com. So, Bradfield leaving the movement is huge -- actually I think it is more important than even the recantation of Sam Frost.

Next Bradfield begins to answer the question of how "the Lord delivered [him] from that error"

"Well, there are a number of factors. Looking back, I think alot of it has to do with how i entered into the view. I embraced “full preterism” out of frustration and impatience. At the time that i decided to go all in, i was a pastor-in-training at a reformed baptist church that taught postmillennialism from the pulpit. So i was already a “partial preterist” for about 2 years. One of the things i struggled with was how and when to make the distinction between the ad70 “coming” and a future one. This was just a natural question i had before ever hearing about “full preterism”. Then one day i was reading RC Sproul’s book the “Last Days According to Jesus”, in which he interacts with J.S. Russell. I then read Russell’s book “The Parousia”. Russell is like 99.9% full preterist. The only verses in Revelation that he had going beyond ad70 was the “thousand years”. One of the biggest shockers in that book was his reprint of a lecture by John Owen who taught that 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled in ad70."

Praise God that Bradfield humbly admits he embraced the heresy "out of frustration and impatience". It was NOT that Bradfield picked up the Bible and suddenly it began glowing and a strange breeze blew it open to Mt 24 and his house shook and he suddenly understood the "time-texts" to all be speaking of AD70.

Another interesting admission here is that Bradfield says that Russell was a 99.9% "full preterist". Further, Bradfield like myself was influenced by John Owen but took Owen's work somewhere Owen himself would not have wanted it taken.

Bradfield continues:

"I started asking the elders what they made of all this. I was honestly struggling with the question of where to *stop*. I mean, if one is going to interpret 99% of the Bible as fulfilled, including a passage that is almost always understood to be future (2 Peter 3), then why hang on to the 1%? Why not go that route, rather than hang on to a few verses in Revelation that were problematic to start with…so was my thinking. But rather than sit me down and work through various texts, they pretty much had the attitude that i needed to shut up and sit down. When i told one elder, who was a big fan of Owen, about Owen’s treatment of 2 Peter 3, he accused me of lying. When i showed him the lecture a week later, he scanned over it, handed it back to me, then turned around and walked off. No apology. No, “hey Jason, sorry for accusing you of lying, but i still disagree with that interpretation and here’s why….” None of that."

This happens to so many well-meaning Christians. A pat or contradicting answer or attitude from someone in supposed "authority" does more damage to a person then anything else. This is the reason why I have been adamant that men like Dr. Kenneth Talbot has done a lot of damage by sending contradicting signals -- calling known hyperpreterists, "brothers" and then saying it is a heresy. Which is it? And then when people challenged Talbot on this, his response was in effect the same that Bradfield expereinced -- just "shut up". Anyhow, people in leadership have a larger responsibility then they realize.

Bradfield continues:

"While i take full responsibility for my actions, i think the treatment i got from my elders once i started asking some questions, didn’t help me at all. I’ve learned alot from that as well. While i certainly agree that heresies and heretics exist today, some christians could do much better in how they handle these people. They didn’t view me as honestly struggling. They immediately viewed me as some cancer to get rid of.
So i finally, at one point, just had to throw my hands up out of frustration and dive in. I didn’t know what else to do because the only people i had around me to help wouldn’t help; other than to beat orthodoxy into me."

There is a time to determine when a person moves from honestly "struggling" to being a "cancer". It is unfortunate that leadership often has two wrong approaches when dealing with issues:

1. Eradication
2. Unconditional Acceptance

If a church immediately stifles any contrast or questions, it will cause more harm than good. Whereas if a church accepts everything and anything, that too causes much harm.

Bradfield continues:

"One could say then, that i kinda went into full preterism on some shaky ground. While i saw a strong preteristic leaning in Scripture, i still had a ton of questions, especially how such a view would jive with my calvinistic beliefs, which i saw just as strongly. But again, since my church wasn’t much help, i dove in thinking, “well, i’ll work all this out somehow.” It was more wishful thinking than anything. And while some full preterists may easily dismiss me by pointing out my words above that I didn’t seem to ever really understand full preterism to begin with; besides the fact that many of these same people never said that about me when i was a full preterist, i can also point out that NO full preterist has worked out these ’systematic’ concerns. It wasn’t so much that i was shaky, as it was that full preterism ITSELF is shaky ground."

A couple of comments. It is refreshing to see Bradfield continue to admit that he, a very invested hyperpreterist entered into the movement on shaky ground and that the entire heresy is itself shaky ground.

Okay, we are about to get into some very important revelations within Bradfield's account. Now, up to this point perhaps Bradfield and his friends have been fine with what I've written thus far. But now I'm going to get a little more critical in my analysis -- not critical as in mean-spirited, but as in pointing out some things that may not be obvious -- maybe not even to Jason. If Bradfield and his friends will just...how does he often say now?..."step back" a moment, perhaps they will understand the source of some of the animosity that exists between me and them.

"Shortly after, i was booted from the church and around that same time, i was playing basketball at Briarwood Pres. in B’Ham one saturday, and ended up running through a glass pane. It sliced my knee and i had to have surgery. Then i couldn’t work (foreman, lawncare) So here i was without a church, lost most of my friends, and lost my job. During this time, i had got in contact with a full pret in Tampa named Sam Frost. He had a reformed background (two Masters) and was pastoring a “full pret” church. I told him about my situation. A week or two later, one of the pastors there called me up with a job offer at an appraisal company. I thought, “well, i can move to Tampa, start working again, and attend a church where i would be welcomed.” So i went."

Note the progression here. Bradfield loses acceptance in his former circles. The network breaks down and leaves him and his family without proper supporting fellowship, especially in his time of need. Somehow Bradfield gets in contact with hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost. Let's STOP HERE for a moment.

One of my MAIN COMPLAINTS against Dr. Kenneth Talbot is that for 10 years, Talbot allowed Frost to not only attend Talbot's Christian seminary, Talbot actually allowed Frost to assist in developing the seminary's student materials. For 10 years, Talbot in essence validated Frost's hyperpreterism. Where was Talbot while Frost continued to advocate this heresy over the last 10-15 years? Why do we not see anything publicly from Talbot discouraging Frost's promotion of heresy? Instead, we see Bradfield; as a dejected Christian who is led astray by Frost into the heresy, by Frost being there at the very crucial moment. Again, what does Rom 16:17-18 say?

Now, being a Calvinist myself we can retrospectively look at all of this (especially as it looks like Frost may eventually really leave the heresy) and say it was all in God's plan. True enough, but unless we are hyper-Calvinists; we are called to STILL call evil evil and good good (Is 5:20). We are still called to oppose wrong doctrine. Where was Talbot to WARN people of what Frost was teaching???

Now watch what Bradfield says:

"I think that move to FL was another huge factor, because once i got into an atmosphere where i was welcomed, all that pressure and sense of urgency to work out the systematic/reformed questions was put on the back burner. I wasn’t in any rush. My fellowship wasn’t being threatened, etc. Sam then introduced me to the full pret community online, and that gave me a lot of comfort. “Wow, there are hundreds of people just like me.” When you get a bunch of people like that together, who share similar church battle stories, there’s just something about it. You feel important. You feel like your part of something again.
I became part of a “community” that was basically in the same place i was…saw strong preteristic leanings in Scripture, wasn’t sure how to stop going the full route, got into some battles with churches, gave up out of frustration, and dove in."

Notice the HUGE FACTOR that precipitated Bradfield's into the heresy -- a WELCOMING, comforting, validating atmosphere. This is EXACTLY why I am soooooo adamant that Christians never appear to validate hyperpreterism or hyperpreterists. It only lengthens their stay within the heresy.

Bradfield admits that without the "pressure", he was able to put the important questions on the back burner. Folks, I oppose hyperpreterism as strongly as I do, not because a "hate" hyperpreterists but because unlike Frost (at the time) and Talbot, I don't want to perpetuate the heresy by making people feel comfortable or accepted in their heresy. Could you imagine how this works if a person makes a drug addict feel like they can just keep on doing drugs? Even worse is when a person acts like they can accept someone who smokes pot but doesn't do cocaine -- as if a lesser form of hyperpreterism is okay as long as the person doesn't go all the way or do it very publicly.

Bradfield continues:

"All during this time though, i always left a foot in the “orthodox” door. 99% of my library is orthodox, so i never just completely removed myself from it. So the questions of how full preterism and reformed thought jived still loomed around in the back of my mind, but all the excitement of the “community” and the thought that we were leading a “new reformation”, got the best of me.
Looking back now, i can see that what was needed was something to jar me out of this wishful thinking…get my head out of the clouds. Something to force me to answer these systematic/reformed questions. That’s when ‘Covenant Creationism’ showed up."

A little humor here -- If person's theological library only consisted of hyperpreterist books, I think it would all fit on one shelf, so of course Jason's library is mainly orthodox :-)

I like how Bradfield admits the excitement of "community" and the idea of being part of a "new reformation" got the best of him. Well, political riots are often seeded the same way; sometimes for good and sometimes for evil purposes.

But what is important is Bradfield's statement about needing something to "jar" him out of the heresy. What is my response to hyperpreterists that claim that if we can just bring them the magic silver bullet proof-text, that they'd leave hyperpreterism? I say that hyperpreterists often suffer from a Proverbs 26:12 mentality where they are too wise in their own eyes to see anything else. I mean, if 2000 years of Christianity believing and teaching the same basics of eschatology doesn't "jar" a person; only God knows what will.

It seems it took a very liberal strain of hyperpreterism to jar Bradfield. But in reality the "Covenant Creationism (CC)" variation of hyperpreterism is one of the more CONSISTENT and "systematic" versions of hyperpreterism. The CC hyperpreterists attempt to apply the hyperpreterist presupposition/premise not just to eschatology, but to all parts of the Bible, including the Genesis account. So, if anything it appears Bradfield was jarred by seeing hyperpreterism moving to its full extent.

This is YET ANOTHER reason why I have been adamant against folks like Gary DeMar who seem to operate on the very edge of orthodoxy and heresy when it comes to hyperpreterism. DeMar has even been reluctant to come out and call it a heresy when Frost once directly asked DeMar if it was. Imagine had DeMar politely said, "Yes, Full Preterism is a heresy Sam and I pray for you to leave it" (source). Instead, men like DeMar have been sending mixed signals to hyperpreterists and non-hyperpreterists. I haven't been saying this about DeMar because I "hate" him, but because I admire him so much and want to see him do the right thing with the God-given position DeMar is in. Think again about how irresponsible those elders were that helped plunge Jason into this heresy in the first place.

Bradfield continues:

"I witnessed this group go down this path of just complete craziness, toppling over a lot of what i deemed to be ‘essential’ doctrine. And even full pret friends of mine who didn’t agree with the Cov Creationist, still thought it should be given a platform. As the creator of one of the most active full pret communities online, i had a serious problem with this and started using the network to go after the Cov Creationists.
This battle with them did three things: (1) The sense of ‘unity’ that i thought i had with full prets was shattered. The Cov Creationists were saying that I could not even call myself a full preterist unless i went that route. I found myself now fighting more with other full preterists then i did with non full prets. (2) I began to notice that many of the arguments used to make their case were very similar to how full prets argued in general. Things like, “well how would the original audience have understood it?” and “well if that word means this here, then it must mean that there”. (3) Because their conclusions were so radical, i began to appreciate more the whole “systematics” issue, which in turn forced me to start addressing the stuff i had laid aside."

Amen and amen! I pray that more and more hyperpreterism is allowed to reach it full application. As it shows itself to be "crazy" and as I often say, something OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIAN, perhaps more people like Jason will be "jarred" away from it. It will probably take this, since no amount of reasoning seems to work. A person has to leave this heresy on their own. The more a person is faced with the "consistent" conclusions of this heresy, the more likely -- if they are a true Christian -- they will leave the heresy. Unfortunately, some will follow it over a cliff, but they are in God's gracious hands...or judgment.

After Bradfield goes on to give some credit to Frost's move away from the heresy (although I believe Jason has so far made a more substantial move), he goes on to make some very important comments.

"This then led me back into Reformed Systematics and as i read it now, i have come to appreciate more and more the “system” aspect of theology. Reading things in light of the WHOLE...full preterism was originally developed within a church of christ/semi-pelagian view of things. Many of the original big shots within the camp have argued that one MUST leave behind, not only reformed thinking, but even things considered fundamental to Christianity in general.
I know anti-full prets have been saying this for years, but i guess i just had to learn the hard way. What they “talked about”, i actually witnessed and experienced for 7 years."

Exactly! What happens when anyone begins to enter into a heresy, whether it be hyperpreterism or a cult like Mormonism; if the person was a believing Christian, the promoters of the heresy must first try to get the person to remove themselves from "the Whole" -- or more precisely, remove themselves from a trust in the collective of Christianity. The heresy must get the person to doubt the credibility of God to sustain truth. They must try to get the person to have more "faith" in their personal ability to "interpret" the text over 2000 years of UNITED Christian belief and teaching on the basics. They often do this by claiming the mantle of being "new reformers" or claiming to utilize "sola Scriptura" (Bible alone) more legitimately than anyone else.

Further, there is a reason that I have CONSTANTLY pointed out that most of the "founders" and present main "teachers" of hyperpreterism all come from a "church of christ" denominational background. This denomination is ALREADY predisposed by its "restorationism" of "the church failed/the gospel failed" ideology to lead right into hyperpreterism presupposition of God's supposed failure to sustain a basic understanding of eschatological truth. (source)

Bradfield concludes by urging the letter writer to help his unnamed friend by "pressing" him on how hyperpreterism affects the "whole" and to show him how it "topples it all over".

Amen Jason. No matter our history, I praise God that what you have written here is some of the most sincere stuff I've seen from ex-hyperpreterists. I hope people listen.

via thekingdomcome.com

Sam Frost Story 2011 | The Kingdom Come

As Sam Frost's unofficial nemesis I thought it fitting to address the major change going on in his theological world. As many readers may know, Frost is a dynamic "theologian" that had been a major leader within the Full or Hyper Preterist movement. I say "had been" because in 2011 Frost has recanted hyperpreterism.

First, we should define what we mean by "hyperpreterism".

HYPERPRETERISM DEFINED

Although hyperpreterism is difficult to define because it is constantly in fluctuation, there are 4 main beliefs that are common to the various types of hyperpreterism:

1. Jesus came back once and for all in the 1st-century.
2. The collective resurrection of believers happened in the 1st-century.
3. The Judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the 1st-century.
4. There will be no end of sin and no culmination to God's plan for humanity.

Frost, like many hyperpreterists claims he studied himself into the movement rather than following any specific teacher into it. Frost had been a hyperpreterist at least since the mid to the late 1990s and bust onto the scene by speaking at almost every hyperpreterist conference held. Frost has always engaged people no matter their status, even if he himself would often boast of his education. So, while hyperpreterists like Don Preston may be more extensively published and engaged in more public debates; Frost has been the approachable "leader" within the movement.

My own experience with Frost (and his protege, Jason Bradfield), has always been rocky. While I was still a hyperpreterist and writing articles for the premiere hyperpreterist website at the time; PlanetPreterist Frost came to the website boasting of pastoral position. This made me think about how the entire ecclesiastical structure is impacted by hyperpreterism. After all, hyperpreterism's motto has been "radical paradigm shift". We should expect that if hyperpreterism is true, it would effect more than just eschatology. This didn't sit well with Frost at first and we had some back and forth on this issue. (ref#1). Interestingly, later on Frost both privately told me he was about to accept my interpretation of how hyperpreterism impacts the Church structure and wrote an article called "Observations" which stated:

"Even the Elders in that time [pre-AD70] had authority to ‘teach the oracles of God.’ But, I do not believe, because I am a [hyper] preterist, that such ‘inspired’ authority exists today. I do not believe that God has set up yet another ‘nation’ in the new covenant that commands uniformity and punishment if uniformity is not met." -- Sam Frost acknowledging how hyperpreterism impacts the Church structure (original article no longer available)

So, the point is the issue that started the conflict between Frost and I had been resolved by Frost accepting the position I put forth. However our relationship remained strained throughout the years due to many factors including the fact that I left the movement many years before Frost.

SAMUEL FROST 2011

Let us fast forward to 2011 where we read these kind of statements from Frost:

"I have left full preterISMⁱ........no doubt about it." 1/12/11" - (ref#2)

"I have stepped outside of my own defenses of FP and have seen my own defenses as simply weak. I was defending something passionately and any thing that came up against it, I quickly dismissed. I am not doing that any more. I have expanded my thoughts. I don't like where "consistent" preterism leads, for I believe that it leads to where a great deal of it is right now: confused and all over the place. I said, too, "just give it time". Well, I gave it sixteen years. I gave it my all. Much sacrifice from family and friends. And, for what? More inconsistencies? More "redefinitions"? How far am I going to go to continue to defend this? How many lines will I cross? How many distinctions will I blur? How many arguments from obsfucation will I distort in order to go full steam ahead?" - (ref#3)

Frost, like all hyperpreterists that leave the movement, or actually like any person that had been part of a heresy or a cult at first wants to think they can part ways peacefully. He said to his fellow hyperpreterists:

"I won't belittle you as "hyper-preterists" or "heretics" or any of those things. I know that doesn't work. It just inflames passions. Pointless, actually. You are made in God's image, and on that basis alone, worthy of respect. I will try my hardest. I consider you friends and brothers (and sisters). I will continue to support where I can..." -- (ref#4)

I think Frost is finding he cannot leave the movement UNLESS he leaves quietly. He cannot "support" is former heretic friends in their heresy...if he really cares for them. He WILL have to confront them and their views at some point. As a matter of fact, it seems contradictory for Frost to have recently stated:

"Basically, the Full Preterist hermeneutic tears the guts out of Reformed Theology. They cannot be reconciled (thank God).” I would add, Christianity itself. Full Preterism and Christianity are incompatible." - (ref#5)

Now, I know many of these newer people leaving the movement think to themselves, "I'm not going to be like Roderick Edwards who goes around and says 'full preterists' aren't Christians. I'm going to be nice and loving". Well, I ask if Frost REALLY believes 'full preterism' and Christianity can't be reconciled and are incompatible then why even give any "support" to 'full preterism'? Would he support Mormonism after he left it? I'm not saying Frost should viciously attack his former movement-mates, but only that he CAN'T keep calling them "brothers and sisters" in Christ while they continue to advocate something even Frost has acknowledged is incompatible with Christianity. How is that phrase by Frost different than the mantra I have been saying for years; "Whatever Hyperpreterism is, it is something OTHER-THAN-CHRISTIANITY". I'd say my comment is even less harsh.

The Sam Frost story is like many former hyperpreterist stories. Frost claimed he was "blind" not to see the ramifications and conclusions of hyperpreterism -- even though Frost has been throughly seminary educated. I submit this "blindness" starts with a wrong understanding of the concept of Sola Scriptura. It does NOT mean to each person their own private interpretation. Even Martin Luther to whom this concept is often attributed, advocated that we should heed along with Scripture, the idea of the "ancient faith" (ref#6). Christianity was never meant to be a bunch of disconnected radical individualists interpreting the Bible however they'd like. It is collective, formed by Jesus Christ Himself, given to the apostles to be its foundation and the Holy Spirit guidance, and God's Sovereign sustaining. If we are to believe the hyperpreterist premise, God Jesus, the hand-picked apostles, and the Holy Spirit have been poor and ineffective conveyers of basic truth and not until the hyperpreterists came along did people figure out the real eschatological plan of God. The extreme arrogance it takes to REMAIN a hyperpreterist once this premise comes to bear, is an arrogance unmatched by the most arrogant of despotic leaders in history.

I am thankful to God for what appears to be leading Frost out of this "blindness". Whether we ever amicably cross paths in the future is probably not likely but it doesn't change that I can and do give glory to God for removing Frost from the blindness of the hyperpreterist movement.

via thekingdomcome.com

Take It From the New Guard | The Kingdom Come

For the longest time, it was just a few of us fighting against hyperpreterism from the INSIDE.  Sure, Dee Dee Warren of PreteristBlog.com had been fighting the heresy and she should be commended for the great work she has done, but she wasn't ever really within the movement.  But what is strange is a new crop opposing hyperpreterism has come to the fore.  Lots of ex-hyerpreterists such as Jason Bradfield (who left before his mentor Sam Frost by the way), Sam Frost and some others.  This new crop, perhaps at the instance of PaulT (PreteristBlog's new mouthpiece) is called the "new guard".  PaulT likes to call me the "old guard".  That's okay I guess since the Bible says "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls." - Jer 6:16a.

Besides the "new guards" AREN'T saying anything different than the "old guards" have been saying all along. For example, I said:

1. Hyperpreterism is NOT Christian, and now we see PaulT saying it here and Sam Frost here.
2. Hyperpreterism MUST be first fought on its presuppositions, and now we see Ken Talbot saying it here and Sam Frost saying it here.
3. That the apostle Paul was preaching the same physical resurrection as the Pharisees, and now we see Jason Bradfield saying it here and Sam Frost saying it here.
4. That most of the hyperpreteristⁱ premises including their constant use of the word "preterist" to describe themselves is misleading, and now we see Sam Frost saying it here.  (specifically, I addressed hyperpret John Hedges here BEFORE Sam Frost makes the SAME points)

So the "new guard" is merely using the things we have been saying all along.  Perhaps they simply have the blessing of the established elites and that is the reason that when they say it, it is somehow supposed to be different. Or maybe they are too proud and puffed up on themselves to actually give anyone else credit for what they think they have "single-handedly" accomplished. Oh well, God can use whatever vessels He wants.  The result will be the same.  I just find it ironic how the "new guard" acts like these are their ideas.  So be it.

via thekingdomcome.com

Whitefield Theological Seminary Continues To Validate Heresy | The Kingdom Come

In October 2008 I wrote to Whitefield Theological Seminary (WTS) and to its president and founder, Kenneth Talbot concerning its relationship with then hyperpreterist leader Samuel M. Frost. Frost had long boasted that he in part arrived at his heretical position via the tools provided him by WTS and Frost had made a point of claiming he was accepted by Talbot as a Christian brother. This is confirmed by Talbot constantly calling Frost and other hyperpreterists, "brother" and validated by the FACT that Talbot was purportedly utilizing Frost to help develop the student Hebrew program for WTS. All of this while Frost was still hot and heavy into the heresy.

My inquiry to WTS and Talbot's surprisingly rather unChristian response (see full details), caused me to distance myself from the so-called "anti-hyperpreterist" community (and the feeling was mutual, as the anti-hyperprets saw in Talbot, a new champion despite his validation of heresy).

My contention then and now is unwavering; that a Christian or a Christian institution should NEVER appear to be validating known heresy. It doesn't matter if the institution is not the Church proper, it still wears the label of "Christian" and when a known heretic can use that institution's credibility to proffer him or herself as accepted within Christianity -- perhaps even as Christian -- then that Christian institution has done a great disservice to the Faith.

Well, the issue has come to the forefront again as another hyperpreterist has declared his association with WTS. Larry Siegle, long self-professed "seasoned teacher" within the hyperpreterist movement announced his application and seeming acceptance to WTS (see here). Now, it is interesting what Siegle says about OTHER seminaries which he investigated attending:

"I have spent the past few months just doing research of the various schools that offer a variety of programs and approaches to how theology must be understood in relationship to the Cross and the events that took place with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Several institutions associated with Churches of Christ took a look at my educational portfolio and declined admission without comment. Others were willing to allow me to enter into their program of study, but with the requirement that I would sign a formal statement of compliance with their Doctrinal Statement. My response was always, "I affirm the propositions as set forth in the doctrinal statement of this institution to the extent that its views are in harmony with what I understand, in good conscience, to be written in the Scriptures." For some of the institutions such an affirmation was insufficient and consideration for admission was either declined, or entrance would be granted on "academic probation" depending upon the degree to which they consider Full Preterismⁱ to be heresy and therefore to be opposed. Some would allow me to "audit" their courses, or even take them for credit, but with the intention of not granting a degree after having met all of the requirements, fearing their reputation would somehow suffer in having my name associated with them."

Yet it appears from what Siegle is saying, that WTS neither declined his admission nor required him to sign a compliance with the basic tenets of the Christian Faith. It seems the other seminaries better understand that the action of letting a known heretic gain a degree from their seminary, validates the heresy and suffers their reputation as a Christian institution.

Long time anti-hyperpreterist, Dee Dee Warren said of the matter:

"I don’t believe orthodox institutions should knowingly allow those who deny an essential of the faith into their midst...Dr. Talbot knows I do not agree at all with orthodox schools allowing blatantly heretical students, but that is not the area of responsibility that God has given me. I am just noting my total disagreement for the public record, and will speak with Dr. Talbot in more detail if he wants to know more." -- Dee Dee Warren on WTS allowing known heretics to attend.

Interesting, since this is a VERY cause of the initial rift between Dee Dee Warren and I. WTS and Talbot's specific apparent validation of known heresy, despite his words to the contrary. Actions speak louder than words.

THE HYPERPRETERIST REACTION

How did Siegle's fellow hyperpreterists react to his news?
A few, such as Kelly Birks who also has an association with WTS and Wanda Short who was a moderator along with Talbot on a hyperpreterist forum, where Talbot used a fake name ("superpreterist") -- these few and some others who have been befriended by Talbot congratulated Siegle. However, those not so entangled by a relationship with Talbot or WTS were more critical.

"So –WTS is educating an apostate heretic and one whose position is viewed as attacking and undermining the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints.

The good news in all of this is that it seriously weakens their attack and creates a clear contradiction to their stated position. No matter what Larry does or does not do, this is a HUGE victory for full preterism." -- hyperpret Dorothy Anderson in response to WTS allowing a known heretic to gain a degree from WTS.

As you can see, even Anderson understands that Talbot's words contradict his actions. WTS essentially AGAIN is lending to the idea that hyperpreterism is acceptable and allowable to thrive within Christian circles.

Another hyperpreterist, often considered the MOST CONSISTENT advocate of the view, "RiversOfEden" had this to say:

"It seems hypocritical for an Orthodox person (e.g. Talbott) to encourage a notorious heretic (e.g. Seigle) to gain an academic certification that the heretic will use to promote views that are antithetical to the Orthodox purpose of the school.

Gaining an academic certification (e.g. M.Div.) is not simply accomplished by completing the coursework. The academic institution is also validating that the candidate is working toward the same theological purpose as the particular school, as well as other orthodox institutions that have a common understanding of what that ministry certification represents.

Full Preterism is not compatible with historic Christian Orthodoxy by any stretch of the imagination. If the purpose of Whitfield seminary is to prepare Christian ministers to make Orthodox disciples, then it is foolish to accept Siegle’s money and encourage him to misrepresent the doctrinal position of the school." -- hyperpret ROE's position on WTS accepting a known heretic into the seminary.

Remember what Siegle said in his original announcement:

"Moreover, there was every assurance given to me that no pressure, academic or otherwise would be applied to those areas of disagreement regarding eschatology and what I understand the Scriptures to teach." -- hyperpret Larry Siegle stating that WTS/Talbot assured him that Siegle will not be pressured to reconsider his heretical position while attending WTS

Hyperpreterist Dave Green, understanding that there is contradiction between the words and actions of WTS/Talbot replied:

"Therefore, what you just said is:

"Whitefield Theological Seminary has given me every assurance
that it will not confront me on my public and unrelenting denial of the gospel (in their view), but will instead publicly join hands with me and take my money."

Larry, how is that different from saying, "Hey Mr. Gospel Denier, If you join my school and pay me, I promise I'll stop pressuring you about your anti-gospel"? -- hyperpret Green on the contradiction of WTS allowing a known heretic to attend WTS.

Exactly!

Yet Talbot's long time protege, Sam Frost attempts to defend WTS/Talbot's decision.

"I don’t see the problem with a Jew, a FP, or an Atheist studying at WTS. I mean, it’s not like WTS is hiring Larry for ministry! he is a student, pure and simple. A most welcomed one at that." -- ex-hyperpret leader Frost defending WTS/Talbot's decision to allow a known heretic attend WTS.

Wait a second!!! Despite the fact that yes, some "Christian" seminaries will let anyone in without qualification ($$$?), do you see what Frost just said??? "it’s not like WTS is hiring Larry for ministry!". So, what of the issue when Frost WAS a hyperpreterist and WAS being utilized by WTS/Talbot in a "ministry" position? It is "ministry" to develop a student Hebrew program for a "Christian" seminary isn't it? Amazing how this hypocrisy is coming round-about.

Needless to say, WTS and Talbot are furthering the perception that WTS/Talbot (and his fellow "anti-hyperprets") only oppose the heresy in word but not in actions. This has been my issue with the "anti-hyperprets" for sometime now; from Phil Naessens who does a podcast with hyperpret Mike Loomis and allows himself to be depicted as Loomis' Christian brother, to now Talbot allowing a known hyperpreterist to attend WTS without "pressuring" Siegle to reconsider his heretical position.

Ultimately, maybe Siegle will repent of hyperpreterism but WTS appears to need to compromise to do it; much like a person who might claim they want to evangelize to drunkards so they go into a bar and drink alongside the drunks to do it. Jesus never sinned or validated sin to reach sinners.

via thekingdomcome.com

The Kingdom Come | Where Christ is King

I just wanted to let everyone know that if something happens to me or my family, they should first suspect Jason L. Bradfield, the P.R. manager for Sam Frost of RCM (Reign of Christ website).  Bradfield has truly been stalking me, even coming onto the Christian Forum, CARM where he was promptly banned by the moderators after he not only blatantly broke multiple rules, but even said he "wished they'd ban him".

Shortly after this, Bradfield started emailing me, even from a fake account called roderickthecoward@yahoo.com with my name as the sender, as if he is Roderick Edwards.  Bradfield obviously has a history of unethical behavior, whether it is blatantly breaking/disrespecting the rules of a community or making it look like someone said something they clearly didn't or using other people's names as a sender in an email.

In these hostile and hate filled emails Bradfield sent, he called me a "little bitch" several times among other names.  He then called my home, while I was at work.  Fortunately I have him recorded and will record him if he ever calls again.  My wife listened to the message and was frightened and called me at work.  This is not the first time Bradfield's group has called my house frightening my family.  Indeed, another hyperpreteristⁱ had at one time threatened to harm my family if I didn't shut up.  I reported that individual to the FBI.

Now, Bradfield is threatening me.  I don't know what his threat entails but he said: "You ain't getting away that easy. It has just begun. Now keeping talking you little bitch."  He said this after I asked him to:

• stop emailing me
• stop sending me Google+ invites
• stop coming onto forums where I am
• stop threatening me
• stop calling my house
• stop assuming you know what goes on at my house

Bradfield is upset partly because he says, unpreterist.blogspot.com is "dedicated to talking about him" and his cronies.  Actually, NO it is dedicated to UNDOING over 15 years of promotion of hyperpreterism.  The FACT is that people like Sam Frost, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Talbot, Dee Dee Warren and yes even Bradfield have been heavily involved in purposely or unwittingly promoting various forms of hyperpreterism.

via thekingdomcome.com

The UnPreterist: Don Preston's Complaint

Hyperpreterism’s main focus within Christian circles is their effort to be seen as valid.  Even when I was part of the hyperpreterist movement, I recall the many discussions hyperpreterists would have about the hope that one day, some “big name” would embrace hyperpreterism & then the movement would be launched into the mainstream.  Well, that sentiment is still alive & well in the movement & the latest exampe of it comes from hyperpreterist debate-champion, Don Preston.
Recently, Bill Hill of the podcast program, “Covenant Radio” announced that he plans to do a “round-table discussion” about hyperpreterism (see ref), which would include Dr. Kenneth Gentry & Whitefield Theological Seminary President, Dr. Kenneth Talbot & an unnamed third participant.

The hyperpreterists have long been trying to gain validity by having Don Preston debate Dr. Gentry & now with this round-table they are clamoring for another chance. The hyperpreterists even started inundating Hill with emails trying to get him to invite Preston to debate Gentry or Talbot.
Preston even wrote a lengthy article/complaint of his own (see ref).  In the complaint Preston tells us,

“When I was apprised of that upcoming program I immediately sent an email to William Hill suggesting that he sponsor a two hour debate between Kenneth Gentry and myself.” (D. Preston)

Preston & other hyperpreterists obviously don’t understand the concept of a ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION.  Such a discussion usually takes one of two forms:
1. Pundits analyze a topic or subject but don’t actually have the object of the topic present.
2. Opponents of a position join in a discussion of the opposed position but don’t actually have a representative of the opposition present.
Preston goes on to point out how Hill has sponsored debates on his show before, even debates between hyperpreterists & Christians.  Preston spends much time in the typical hyperpreterist practice of trying to psycho-analyze Hill’s motives.  There are a few reasons beyond the normal why Preston should ESPECIALLY not engage in this practice.
1. Preston is typically out of the loop on what is going on around him.  I recall how long it took him to address the growing universalism within hyperpreterism.  He still doesn’t seem to want to do anything about the riff between the “Covenant Creationists” & the “Cosmological Creationists” within his own movement.  Preston even says in his complaint that someone else “apprised” him of the pending round-table discussion.
2. Preston has NEVER answered for the way he ditched his congregation when they weren’t financially supporting his efforts to spread hyperpreterism (see ref).
How dare Preston smugly chide Hill when Preston is clearly guitly of the very things he implies of Hill.  Preston even employs that same old tactic used by the hyperpreterist & homosexual movement alike — they claim people are “afraid”.  Preston says:

“One can detect a good bit of fear, frustration and angst in this response. But, Mr. Hill is not through, for evidently the emails kept coming.” (D. Preston)

Preston, listen up — no one is afraid of hyperpreterists any more than we are of homosexuals — both DO disgust us, but fear? No!  I’d of thought that you’d be more mature than the Jason Bradfields & Mike Bennetts of hyperpreterism, but apparently even the “leaders” of hyperpreterism are affected by the malady of moral malfeasance.
Further, Preston either lies or likely wasn’t “apprised” of what comments were ACTUALLY posted on the announcement since Preston wrongly states:

“What is even more interesting about Hill’s curt response is that some of the posters on his site are adamant enemies of true preterism, but they too are asking for a roundtable discussion between R. C. Sproul, Gentry, and representative leaders from the true preterist movement.” (D. Preston)

Well, I’m the nameless “adamant enemy” who posted the comment & it WASN’T as Preston depicts.  I actually said:

“I’d like to see a panel of guys like R.C. Sproul Sr., Dr. Ken Gentry & others that hyperpreterists have desired to make into champions. We need to hear these men clearly distinguish the historical from the heretical.” (Roderick E)

I never ask for a hyperpreterist to be included, as a matter of fact, as a round-table discussion, I would urge against letting them participate. Will Preston retract his lie/misunderstanding???
But the most outrageous thing within Preston’s complaint is when he supposes to lecture Hill on what it means to be Reformed.  Now, folks keep in mind that Preston is a “church of Christ” minister - from a long, long family line of “coC” ministers.  And if you recall, the main premise of the “coC” denomination is that the true Church & true Gospel had failed & they had to “restore” it.  SEE RESTORATION MOVEMENT.  How dare this man try to employ the name of Martin Luther. Luther as much as he rejected the Papists soundly rejected the RADICALS who wanted to do as the hyperpreterists now & reject all of historic Christianity.  Preston even ignores those FACTS about Luther & the Reformation & instead, like the typical hyperpreterist Preston tries to paint Luther as a wild-eyed radical like himself:

“Luther challenged the pope to formal debate! Had the pope taken Mr. Hill’s current position, he would have responded that, “No such debate will take place, so save yourself the trouble Mr. Luther, and do not bother challenging me again!” Perhaps he would have castigated brother Luther and his followers for “stooping” to such a level as to challenge him to a debate. Now, to be sure, the pope would have been far better off for himself had he done that, for he had much to lose– and he did lose it! I think one can see the parallels at work here, if I may say so.” (D. Preston)

The problem is, the comparison is wrong.  Hyperpreterists are more like Andreas Karlstadt whom Luther not only didn’t debate, but Luther denied Karlstadt the right to preach or publish without his consent (look it up Preston, don’t wait for someone to “apprise” you of  it)  Further, hyperpreterists are like Michael Servetus who like hyperpreterists hounded & hounded the Reformers so as to seek validity.  Whereas, Gentry’s famous line of warning not to interact with a hyperpreterist or you’ll “die the death of a thousand emails”, John Calvin & the other Reformers had to put up with the constant private-interpretation correspondance of the radicals of their day.  THAT is the true “parallels at work” here Mr. Preston but since you & your “coC” heritage knows nothing of REAL history, you would not have known that.  And interestingly enough, not a peep of a rebuke to you from the supposed token “Calvinists” within the hyperpreterist movement.  They might give you a pass on your misinformation/lies, but we’re not.
Preston then relates how Hill formerly allowed some debates between Preston & others on the show, but what Preston deceitfully doesn’t tell his readers is that for a time Covenant Radio had a hyperpreterist for a co-host.  Hill fully, & humbly admits he let some things slide at that time & was being somewhat influenced by his noble attempt to be friendly with his co-host.
Preston concludes by telling all his fellow hyperpreterists to listen to the round-table discussion since Preston plans to gather a round-table of fellow hyperpreterists (all named are “coC” hyperpreterist btw) to respond to Hill’s program.  Good for them.  Let the liars or “unapprised” remain outside the gates & hold all the round-tables they want.  Christians are NOT required to allow such at the table, round, square or otherwise.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

via unpreterist.blogspot.com

The UnPreterist: Navigating the Factions of Hyperpreterism

When someone first encounters hyperpreterism, one of the first things they experience is that the “movement” is highly factionalized.  There seems to be no unified expression of hyperpreterism, yet four things that identify a person as a hyperpreterist are:
BASIC HYPERPRETERIST BELIEFS

1. Belief that Jesus came back once and for all in the first-century
2. Belief that the resurrection of the believers happened in the first-century
3. Belief that the judgment of the wicked and righteous happened in the first-century
4. Belief that there will be no culmination/conclusion of the physical planet

Now, a person need not believe all of these points to be considered a hyperpreterist, though the more of the points they believe the more “consistent” they will be. Over-arching these beliefs, ALL hyperpreterists, whether they admit it or not MUST believe God/Jesus/the apostles/the Holy Spirit were unable or unwilling to maintain among the Church even a most basic correct understanding of God’s eschatological plan. 

Since right after the year AD70 and for 2000 years, Christianity has been UNITED in affirming AGAINST the four main beliefs of hyperpreterism, the only “logical” conclusion a hyperpreterist can come to is that the Church has been in gross error for over 2000 years.
Hyperpreterists are often seen showing contempt or disdain for “traditional” Christianity.  They often will attempt to utilize theologians like Martin Luther & other Reformers and claim they too are challenging the status quo.  But the reality is, hyperpreterists are more like the “radical reformers” who wanted to chuck it all and start over with a “new kind of Christianity”, much as the current Emergent/Postmodern movement advocates today.
In 2009, the hyperpreterist movement could be divided into four main factions:
1. Transmills — Max King/Tim King/Kevin Beck. This group has distanced itself from the wider hyperpreterist movement.  The Transmills advocate a vague universalism & Emergent-like social “gospel”.
2. Covenantal Creationists — Tim Martin/Jeff Vaughn/Tami Jelinek/Ward Fenely/John Scargy. This group’s main focal point is using a hyper form of “Old Earth Creationism” to smuggle in hyperpreterism.  They believe most of the Creation/Flood account is “covenantal” or metaphorical in nature.  Some even claim that the animals spoken of in the Flood account were representative of people.
3. Cosmological Creationists/Calvinists — Sam Frost/Kelly Birks/Jason Bradfield/David Green/Mike Sullivan. This group claims to be “Reformed/Calvinist” but often uses the term “Sovereign Grace”.  While their original focus was on a “Calvinistic hyperpreterism” which sprang from the concepts of David Chilton & has been utilizing works of “partial-preterists” such as Gentry, Sproul, & DeMar to piggy back people into hyperpreterism, this group has moved away from “Reformed” positions.  This group has a large “Clarkian” element that claims to embrace “Sola Scriptura” but is actually private interpretation alone.  They often clash with the “Covenantal Creationists” faction.
4. Universalists & Loners — “Davo” David Emry/John Noe/Ed Stevens/Jerry Bowers jr./nameless others. This group was originally forming as a strong faction within hyperpreterism under the banner of universalism.  It petered out sometime in 2006-2007.  Many within this faction drift in & out of the Transmill faction.  The “loners” are hyperpreterists that don’t really fit into any of the current factions.  The loners are not necessarily universalists, but do advocate very erradic doctrines, even more so than the main factions. While Ed Stevens may be closer aligned with the “Cosmological Creationists/Calvinists”, his 1st-century rapture view has relegated him to the fringe.  John Noe, whose works used to be a mainstay with the movement has since gone off on some vague form of personal “idealism” wherein he claims “many comings” of Jesus.
For a long time, hyperpreterist Virgil Vaduva, son-in-law to Terry Hall was the main conduit these factions would use to launch their “careers” within the movement.  Since about 2003, the influence and necessity of Vaduva has been waning.
Navigating the numerous factions within hyperpreterism can be difficult and almost arbitrary but if you keep in mind that the hyperpreterist movement is mainly comprised of individuals that have been disenfranchised from various denominations and have pooled together around rabid private interpretation, you’ll have a better understanding of what motivates the typical hyperpreterist.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

via unpreterist.blogspot.com