“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.” - Hyperpreterist David Green. Ep. 7 is a special episode for me for two reasons. One, it is my first interview of a guest. Yay! But more importantly, it is an interview with my long-time friend and former hyperpreterist Roderick Edwards. Roderick and I have an informal discussion of the state of hyperpreterism today, and Roderick lends his perspective on issues within hyperpreterism as someone who was an insider. I hope you find the discussion informative and enjoyable.
Links and Resources
The MannersCast - The MannersCast guys discuss the manners of correcting grammar based upon a situation that I relayed to them.
Podcaster Music - My friend Glenn has started a podcast theme creation site. If you have or are starting a podcast and need some original podsafe music, please check it out.
Debate between hyperpreterist David Green and preterist Keith Mathison on David’s article [Hyper]Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds in which David conceded that there are only two possibilities for the hyperpreterist position: it is either right or it is definitely damnable heresy (David’s words).
PreteristSite page on my September 2006 interview with Roderick. This page also includes various blog post links that I wrote on the subject of the interview.
Roderick’s website The Kingdom Come
Grave Error: Hyperpreterism and the Response of the Church - my article on the place of hyperpreterism within historic Christianity along with my response to Samuel Frost Frosty the Strawman
An additional interview with Roderick is planned for the near future dealing with the responsibility of preterists to be wary of imprecision and co-mingling with hyperpreterists which can be exploited to lead people into hyperpreterism.
Excellent shows here, Dee Dee. I’ve been enjoying all of the talk and I’m on my way soon to write an I-Tunes review. Promise!
So I’ve been working with editing the Wikipedia entry of “Preterism,” since yesterday, to give reference support to the Orthodox position’s beliefs. I even posted citations from documents of the church fathers and Robert Townley, showing that the fathers’ orthodox preterism preceeded Townley’s hyperpreterism by nearly 1700 years. Cites are gone this morning and I can tell it’s been altered shoddily, because “Full Preterism” is now called “ull Preterism.”
Who does this stuff? The information was completely accurate! I’m kind of smelling a stinker.
Hi Chris, I look forward to the review. I know it is totally silly, but I get so thrilled when I get them.
And ahhhh wikipedia. A few years ago I was in a huge battle over that article to get it to the state it is in today. It used to be a total hyperpreterist propaganda piece, but there was a level-headed Hyperprterist, Mike Beidler, and he and I hashed out some things. It certainly does need references, and if you are certain that yours are correct, stand your ground. Get an admin involved if you need to. One thing I noted though, you will have much better luck if you initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article for your changes. Wikipedia encourages that arguments be talked through, and oftentimes that helps settle disputes. It appears that there are two hyperpreterists editing your changes. One of them, Virgil, did invite you to the talk page to discuss, so I would definitely take that route and speak with him. I will be keeping an eye over there as well - I had kinda forgotten about it.
Great show! Stealth hyperpreterism is a big problem. For example, Gary DeMar just had Tim Martin of Beyond Creation Science on his radio show. While Gary seemed skeptical (Recontructionists are young Earthers), he did not say a word about Martin’s belief that the Millennium is the 40 year period between the Ascension and AD 70. What an omission!