You are hereDisarmed and Dangerous: The Dangers of Hypo-Preterism
Disarmed and Dangerous: The Dangers of Hypo-Preterism
Armed with nothing more than wooden swords, partial preterists (whom we should fittingly label hypo-preterists) are dropping like flies, realizing the fallacy of their position. While it may be ok to be a hypo-preterist for a short period of time, a time of transition in someone’s thinking, it is definitely dangerous to dwell in it or become entrenched in such a position. In other words, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.When discussing or debating eschatology with hypo-preterists, charges of heresy and heterodoxy are thrown around when no sound argument is available, and ad-hominem arguments are more than common. Some of the most common and dangerous arguments for hypo-preterism and even futurism that I have encountered so far, are:
There are many more ad-hominem arguments that hypo-preterists usually invoke during a discussion. As Christians that study God’s word and share it in love, we should stay away from such arguments and use God’s word only when discussing prophecy, from any perspective whatsoever.
We should also recognize that an individual using such arguments is either out of ammo and is involuntarily appealing to feelings and presuppositions, or is simply not interested in truth or further evidence. Honesty is a pre-requisite in debating, and I have learned that often, time can be much better spent in God’s word, rather than debating individuals un-interested in the truth.
Good job Virgil!
The interesting thing that Pseudo-preterists don't think about is that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE AT LEAST PARTIAL PRETERISTS!!!
Even dispensationalists believe that SOME of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled. What makes DeMar or North or Gentry more of a Preterist than Hal Lindsay?
As Roderick pointed out, Preterism doesn't work with adjectives. It stands alone. We are Christians. We are Preterists. No one can be a partial Christian. No one can be a partial preterist.
Val
Val (Mike) Smith
That's good Val. I like the "partial Christian" argument. :)
What bothers me is the "labeling" that has been going on for a while...especially the "hyper-preterist" label that Gentry came up with, as if we (and I mean full-preterists) are "abnormal" or off in our approach to prophecy.
That is why, I think that from now on we should refer to partial preterists as hypo-preterists, not as an insult (because they claim that "hyper-preterism" is not meant to be an insult), but as a proper and descriptive way to illustrate their approach to prophecy:
hypo- or hyp-
pref.
1. Below; beneath; under: hypodermic.
2. Less than normal; deficient: hypoesthesia.
3. In the lowest state of oxidation: hypoxanthine.
4. A prefix signifying a less quantity, or a low state or degree, of that denoted by the word with which it is joined, or position under or beneath.
I may be wrong, but I think it's fair game...
Why don't we just call them Partial-Futurist! That's truely what they are. Or how about Fence-Sitters?
RH
...onward TowardsTruthandReformation!
Great article and great perspective. Debating someone like these people is almost not worth it.
But I must share an idea related to your wonderful article. I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
Futurist and pseudo-preterists have a few choices about the Kingdom.
1. Its here and now (the preterist/biblical position)
2. Its partially here but will be completely established at Christ's supposed future coming.
3. It hasn't even started yet.
Now, they obviously don't take point 1. Most take point 2., and rarely any with any biblical knowledge take point 3.
So lets look closer at point 2. According to futurists and (most) pseudo-prets, Christ will return and destory this old earth along with the old heavens. -- We'll if they believe point 2, won't that mean Christ's kingdom will also be destroyed? -- It is comparable to framing a house and then buring it to the ground. Jesus' kingdom is supposed to be eternal. So I wonder how they deal with that? (I never gave it much thought when I was a futurist, so I'm not certain how I would have dealt with it. I guess thats why I'm now a preterist ;) )
This is a great point. Really what it comes down to is common sense, which is just as much part of the argument as God's Word.
Anyone that knows anything about physics in general and Einstein's Relativity in particular KNOWS AS A FACT that this world (and by world I mean space time), will never be destroyed.
In my soon-to-come-out book (hopefully) I made a strong argument against the end of the space-time continuum. There is an excerpt here in this article that I posted a while back.
What Roderick said is of key importance. When Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world" he really meant it, he was not just playing with words. Now if Christ's Kingdom does not belong in what we call "space and time", which is THIS WORLD, it is obvious that no matter what will happen in the future on planet earth will make any difference whatsoever as to how the kingdom exists. Although not of physical nature, His kingdom exists on a totally different plane of reality which intersects our physical universe through spiritual means (see Revelation 11:15). So in some ways, being a hypo-preterist is probably a much worse and more precarious position than being a dispensationalist. At least dispensationalists attempt to be consistent...
Yes,Yes,Yes...
Right on and Preach on! The inconsistency of the 'Partial' is well just as the label suggests 'Partial' or 'on the way to 'full'! Preterism is a term that must stand alone. If one will not 'move' to the true, not to mention logical(in the Scriptural sense) position of Preterism, one might do well to abandon the position altogether.
We urge all the 'inconsistent' futurists a.k.a. Partial Preterists to "fish or cut bait"!:) However, that being said. I'll take a 'partial' over anyother end-times interpretation any day!!!:)
RH
...onward TowardsTruthandReformation!
Virgil, Great article! I have a feeling partial pret's aren't really Preterist's at all! I'd have to ask them, what's holding you back? They are really futurist's at heart if you ask me. They kind of remind me of moderate politicians who like to make people think they are conservative but are to afraid to come out and say they are really conservative for fear of looking like extremeist's! Moderate, liberal, it's the same thing to me, so it is with the partical pret's, where is the backbone?
thanks for writing the article,
BJ