The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

What follows is a transcript & the actual audio of Don Preston’s resignation speech given at his hyperpreterist church in Ardmore OK. The church had existed for over 16 years but as Preston himself says, the “failure to grow” was his motivation for resigning. This is very significant because not only was this one of the longest established hyperpreterist congregations but it was headed by the hyperpreterist movement’s most esteemed speaker. Now folks, if hyperpreterism isn’t going to grow under the guidance of a guy like Preston, then maybe these people need to ask why.

Um — the quickest way to do this is just to simply say, I am resigning as the minister of this congregation. We started out — we started out some 16 years ago with great hopes & dreams. And we have — we’ve accomplished some great things. But all you have to do is look around this morning — we haven’t grown. Many of our younger couples have abandoned us. We had discussed the goal of one day — of one day reaching the point where we’d be able to hire another man & I would be able to go into full time — in full time seminar debate & book writing work. Our failure to grow obviously does not make it possible. So, uh so I am resigning — in order to give the oper–give the congregation the oportunity to hire someone — that will — that will be more focused — and successful with the local evangelist work.

Hey, you hyperpreterists — don’t get angry with me over this — these are Preston’s own words here. He is the one who said his long time hyperpreterist congregation failed to grow & that young people abandoned the congregation. Perhaps a clue as to why is found in the last sentence. Perhaps had he been focused on evangelism, the GOSPEL instead of propagating the heresy of hyperpreterism things would have been different. Not only that, but it seems Preston is more upset that the failure means he wouldn’t have a financial arm to fund his plan to propagate hyperpreterism even more.

This isn’t the first time a hyperpreterist congregation has failed. Samuel Frost also had a hyperpreterist congregation that failed. Terry Hall, father-in-law to Virgil Vaduva also “ministered” to a hyperpreterist congregation. It is so secretive that it doesn’t even have a web presence so we have no idea how it is doing.

Folks, hyperpreterism is just a movement full of disenfranchised ex-church goers that pool around some hyperpreterist “hero”. After a while, the followers get bored with all the hype, all the egos. For some followers, they drop out altogether, maybe even becoming atheists like Jared Coleman (a former admin of PlanetPreterist — the most popular hyperpreterist site). For other followers, they drop from the scene never to be heard from again. Sure, new “adherents” are always coming on board, but they too will end up like the rest — “failure to grow”. They may think that their new “paradigm” has finally opened up their faith — but faith in what??? Hyperpreterism is NOT Christianity. It is historically UNLIKE anything ever in Christianity. Even an atheist who becomes a Mormon or a JW, or a Muslim may think their life is now “alive” — but it is really just another entanglement until they become disillusioned & drop out. Until they become atheist, until they leave their wives or husbands, until they are abandoned by friends & family who could no longer wait for them to come to their senses.

I’m not saying this to be mean. I know some hyperpreterists reading this will see the light & wake up. Don’t worry about writing me or even publicly announcing your rejection of hyperpreterism — just go back to being with REAL Christians where there is NOT “failure to grow” — to grow in numbers & quality of faith. Hyperpreterism ISN’T really growing if you compare the growth during the Reformation, or even the growth of dispensationalism. Hyperpreterism really is just a blip, a novelty stop off point for people on their way to some other place…hopefully to some place away from the heresy of hyperpreterism & back to the historic Christian faith.

The audio is found here: http://thekingdomcome.com/060820_Don_Resigns2.mp3

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

So I am now starting on Brown’s 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his eighth argument (this is long and will be spread amongst multiple days and posts):

228-230

It is a fatal objection to the literal sense of this prophecy, as announcing the bodily resurrection of all dead, and the change of all living saints, that it is exclusivey a martyr-scene - the prophet beholding simply a resurrection of the slain; whereas this very circumstance eminently favours the figurative sense.

The vision is described first generally, and then in detail. Two companies are seen in the vision, and in two successive and opposite condition - first as dead and dishonoured, next as risen and reigning. Thus: -

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE VISION.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given upon them:

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE VISION.

First Company seen Dead.

“And [I saw] the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the Word of God;

Second Company seen Dead.

“And [I saw] such as had not worshiped the beast nor his image, neither had received his mark upon their forehead and on their hand:

Both Companies seen Risen and Reigning.

“And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (v. 4)

A few remarks on the several clauses of the passage will still further open it up.

“I saw thrones, and they sat upon them.” Who sat upon them? Not any mentioned as yet, for the vision begins here. Clearly, therefore, it is the two companies about to be specified. Accordingly, as soon as the prophet has described these in detail, he comes back to his first general statement - “And they (those now specified) lived and reigned a thousand years;” as if he had said, ‘And I saw thrones, and persons sitting on them, to whom judgment was given: these thrones were filled by the beheaded, and such as had not worshiped the beast: And their reign lasted a thousand years.’ If this be the construction of the passage, as it clearly is - if the word “they sat upon them” mean “they to be presently mentioned” - then we must put no other saints into the vision besides those afterwards specified; and the concluding words, “and they lived and reigned,” tie us preremptorily down to those two companies alone.

Ouch.

Introduction: I am reading “Christ’s Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?” by David Brown with foreword by Kenneth Gentry. This is an older work which takes a more historicist view and is described by Dr. Gentry as one of the exemplary refutations of dispensationalism in its time. As I like to do, I am going to post some excerpts here that I find useful at the moment.

So I am now starting on Brown’s 9 arguments for his (and my) interpretation of Revelation 20. I will condense where I can, but this is tasty stuff, a lot of which needs to be posted in full.

This is his seventh argument:

Pages 227-228

“The omission,” says the acute author just quoted, “of any declaration as to ‘the sea, death, and the grave [or Hades] giving up the dead’ at the first resurrection, and the making such a declaration respecting ‘the dead’ in verse 13, convinces me both that ‘the first resurrection’ is not that of the saints, and also, that ‘the dead’ in verses 12, 13, include all mankind, both the saints and the ungodly. In every other part of the Word of God, the information given concerning the resurrection of the saints is not only much more frequent, but also much more explicit, tan concerning the resurrection of the ungodly. I feel convinced, therefore, that in this portion also of Scripture, if it were intended to foretell a resurrection of the saints distinct from that of the ungodly, more explicit information would be given concerning the former than concerning the latter. I find, however, that the information given concerning ‘the first resurrection,’ instead of being much more, is much less explicit than that concerning the resurrection intimated in verses 12, 13; for there is a not the least allusion to ‘the sea, death, and the grave giving up the dead’ at the first resurrection, and it is expressly declared that they do this at the time of the resurrection set forth in verses 12, 13. By contrasting this, therefore, with the course pursued in other portions of the Word of God, I feel convinced that the first resurrection cannot be that of the saints; and that verses 12, 13, do not describe the resurrection of the ungodly only, but that of the saints also, and include all the dead without any exception.”

The seven foregoing arguments have been gathered from the surface of the millennial prophecy: the two following, with which I will conclude, are suggested by a narrower observation of the vision.

The premillenial Jenga tower is a-tumbling down.

Part one of the butt-whupping

Brief summary: Part one of a somewhat humourous critique that I will be doing on the audio version of Left Behind by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This is the first part and barely gets into the opening chapter of the first book. I introduce why I am doing this to begin with and why, although I am handling this is a joking manner, infantile reduction of Christianity in American Christianity is a major problem.

Much love to iPhone Savior.