KingNeb submitted: ""Slander" according to Britannica 2003 CD Edition - "misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation" -- On page XV in the "editor's introduction" of Keith Mathison's book, "When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism", it says...
" The origins of hyper-preterism are somewhat difficult to trace. There have
always been men in the church who have believed that some New Testament
prophecies were fulfilled in the first century. Many, for example, have
taught that Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple - an
event that occurred in A.D. 70. But systematic and total preterism is
difficult to find anywhere in the church until the nineteenth century.
Although the view may have been held at an earlier date by some obscure
individual or group, one of the first open proponents of hyper-preterism was
John Humphrey Noyes (1811-86), the founder of the Oneida Community. Noyes
founded a perfectionist commune in Oneida, New York, that lived by his
rather bizarre teachings regarding property and sex."
On it goes with a quote from John Noyes concerning that he believed the
second coming had already happened. In a footnote, they mention how John
also advocated "free love, urging the members of the community to engage is
{should be 'in', typo in book} sexual intercourse with as many partners as
possible."
This quote is only three pages into the book. Now, I try to be open minded
and humble and am fully aware that I can err. When I bought this book, I was
anticipating a good healthy challenge from some Reformed men of whom I have
read in the past and gained respect for. In fact, Mathison's book on
Dispensationalism aided me in coming out of that and into Postmillennialism.
But this little paragraph here infuriated me.
Notice what the reader (only a reader who has never read the current
'hyper-preterist' books nor has any personal relationship with one) is
sucked into believing just three pages into the material. John Noyes, a man
whom every 'hyper-preterist' I know of, including myself, would consider
INSANE and a heretic due to his abominable teaching of 'free-love', is
deliberately called "one of the first open proponents of hyper-preterism."
Let's turn this around. How would Keith Mathison, a Trinitarian, calvinist,
postmillennialist, feel if in a book in response to his teachings gives a
list of postmillennialist with Daniel Whitby near the top and then mentions
Keith in the list, and then makes no attempt whatsoever to let the reader
know that Daniel Whitby was a liberal? Whitby was an Arminian minister in
the Church of England, known for being strongly anti-Calvinistic, and later
gave evidence of strong Arian and Unitarian tendencies. Would Keith Mathison
except Daniel Whitby as a faithful representative of his 'postmillennialism'
? Both of them are postmillennial! Keith is vehemently opposed to
Unitarianism and Arminianism. "But hey, I don't have to let the reader know
that. I'm going to put these two in the same list and give the reader the
impression that these two men, because of their postmillennialism, are on
the same level."
The fact is, no 'hyper-preterist' that I know of (and I know a lot of them)
would approve of John Noyes. If John Noyes himself actually saw Jesus come
in the clouds and had a polaroid, his 'free-love' teaching would immediately
put him on my list of wackos I would stay clear away from. And he would be
on the lists of Sam Frost, Don Preston, Ed Stevens, and Max King as well.
What Mathison does here just three pages into the book is absolutely
disgusting and twisted and, I believe, a deliberate attempt to prejudice the
reader into thinking "you better watch these hyper-preterists - one of their
first proponents swapped wives."
Hey, next month, I think I'll write a book called "A Response to
Postmillennialism: The Eschatology of Free-Willy and Unitarians" with the
first chapter "A direct response to Daniel Whitby and Keith Mathison"."
E-mail to Friend - 
Print - 
View PDF - 
Subscribe - 
Comments RSS
