Is this project a personal grudge against hyper-preterists?

Now, I strive (and fail in the flesh like we all do) to make this podcast, though strongly worded for I do indeed loathe this heresy (NOT the persons who have unfortunately embraced it) with every fibre of my being, not personal but doctrinal. While there are some indeed some hyper-preterists that I really just don’t like, it is not simply because they are hyper-preterists but for other reasons. There are some that I like very much, and they know it because we have had extensive personal dialog. I fully intend to anathematize the doctrine, I do not intend to demonize the person simply because of the doctrine. I do have certain criticisms of some behaviour I have seen as typical within this movement, but this behaviour is bad on its own - irrespective of the doctrine.

What greatly motivates me is the fact that this point of view is attempting to pass itself off as just “another” legitimate eschatological view within the umbrella of the historic faith. It is not. It is downright theologically cagey and dishonest to pretend like it is. Its adherents acknowledge this reality in differing degrees. First of all, they argue that the Creeds need to be abandoned or reformed. If the historic faith is in conformity with the Creeds as agreeing they agree with Scripture, it is indeed asking for an abandonment of the position of the historic faith, and thus at is stands is by definition NOT currently just “another” eschatological view. Second, the more forthright adherents grant me my very premise, that is that my point of view by its nature demands anathematization of their view, thus to approach others without candor in that respect is again deceptive.

What are your qualifications? Who are you?

I am a lay person disgusted with the spread of rank heresy and once pulled in by this heresy herself. I have no formal credentials to claim of my own other than a passion for the Word and the Church. I hope to go to seminary some day and had plans to attend Southern Evangelical Seminary when my ministry plans took a turn in a different direction. However, I also do not believe that formal training is required for a person to be competent in many areas and to speak with some level of authority. I have dedicated years to the study of eschatology and related topics and generally speaking am more competent (or at least as competent) in that specific and limited area than a seminary-trained student who hasn’t dedicated their particular studies to this area. I can think of many lay persons in other areas of Biblical study that would qualify for the same. But I make no pretense about my formal training, I have none, nor do I think that necessarily renders a person unfit for debate. But if you are still interested, I was interviewed by The Wittenburg Door magazine here.

Is Dee Dee Warren Your “Real” Name?

No. It is a writing name I adopted back at the insistence of my husband in 1999 or so to protect our privacy when I began to write for Tekton Apologetics Ministries after a short stint with a goofy name I despised. It is the name I choose to use online and for online-related activities, and unless you are a close friend, I ask that you respect that and my family’s privacy. It is within the law to adopt an alias which is just as legal and proper as your birth name as long as it is not done to defraud. After so many years, this is just as much my “real name” as my real name, it is my online life.

For a index of items relating to or authored by me see The DDW Files.

Aren’t you a “partial preterist”?

It is said, “He who controls the language wins the war.” This may not be ultimately true, for Christ will win despite our shortcomings, but there is great power in subtleties of semantics, and guess what? The heretics are winning. This is why I refuse to own or use with regularity the term “partial preterist” while letting those whose doctrines place them outside the faith abscond with the historical term of “preterist” or flatter themselves with “full preterist” (pity you poor half-full guys, you sound so darned empty and incomplete) or “consistent preterist” ( which makes their opponents wrong by definition). What I believe is what has historically been meant by the term “preterist,” and we should not give up this valid moniker without a fight and let the heretics control our language. Do Calvinists let the hyperCalvinists do this (and no I am NOT referring to hyperCalvinism as heresy)? Do we hear them being referred to as “partial Calvinists”? No. Preterism is a theological term with a good history. Don’t give it up with out a fight. It is the heretics who must add a qualifier, we have no need to except perhaps in way of introduction to distinguish ourselves from this small, vocal, and militant minority. Also, do not play into the hands of semantical games with using their loaded term of “full preterist.” If you reject my designation of NeoHymenaean (which I do not use in every instance), I urge you to use the time-tested methodology of adding a “hyper” to the designation and refer to them as hyper-preterists. Or take the route of Pastor Seraiah and adopt the new designation for this new heretical systemization of an ancient error - pantelism. But my friend, the term “preterist” belongs to you. Claim it.

For an apologetic of this position, see Sem[ANTICS]: Perfuming the Hog ~ why an orthodox person should not buy into the semantical games of hyperpreterists by using their terminology, we are not “partial preterists” - we are preterists.  Episode 4 of The Preterist Podcast goes into even further detail.

How can I contact you?

I may be reached at preteristpodcast@gmail.com

How can I help?

I am desiring greatly to have a Google ad for this site, but frankly do not have the funds (I was able to run one for a short time and will continue to do so each time I am able). If anyone would like to help support a Google ad, please contact me. This podcast does not and will not generate income, this is a personal ministry for me.

Can I reprint or rebroadcast things from The Preterist Podcast?

Please write for permission ahead of time.

Is there a church that teaches this stuff?

Not particularly though some Pastors, usually Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian, hold some similar views. I do not divide fellowship from other orthodox views, nor do I advocate being divisive in a fellowship that has different convictions. Many people tend to over-emphasize a particular point of view so that they are more focused on seeing themselves as a “preterist” or “Reformed” or some other appellation and the idea of unity in Christ can inadvertently get lost.

Do you debate “full preterists”?

I don’t, as a general rule, make a practice out of debating “full preterists.” Well, let me get more specific…. I don’t, as a general rule, make a practice out of debating “full preterists”…. anymore. There was a period where that was the only real substantive subject I was debating. I have 39 pages plus in my archives left out of that exchange to show for my efforts and such a debate was my first Paltalk experience, and since that time I have, against my better judgement and more importantly against my self-control, gotten in minor skirmishs with chat room/discussion thread “full preterists” which each time remind me why I don’t usually bother. For me the best bet is to stay away from such settings as the problem is not getting me to debate or comment, but keeping me from it.

So why am I even addressing this issue? Because periodically there has been some wonder and maybe even some smack talk about this no-debate-no-hyper-preterist stance. So I gotta ask the begged question - why do some people think I no longer debate the issue? Is it because they think that I am so enamored with conforming to the opinions of others that I will willingly believe something I know to be incorrect, and not only avoid debating the issue because I know I would lose, but turn around and anathematize the same people I think are right? Is that it? Well then the issue is not really my eschatology but the fact that I am being accused of being a bridge troll. So now that this inanity is out of the way, there obviously are other reasons unless you wish to accuse me of really disgusting moral crimes. You can choose to believe that if you wish, at least be honest about it. The fact is that if I thought “full preterism” was in fact correct, I would hold it, but here is one thing I would not do… I would not try to weasel myself into the ranks of the nonadherents by FALSELY claiming that within their paradigm, this is just another acceptable view. It is not. I would have the backbone and courage to accept the implications of my position, just as if I became a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, or Christadelphian. This common tactic of constantly trying to paint themselves as “one of the brethren” (WITHIN the paradigm of the nonadherent) is one large reason I do not debate - I find it theologically dishonest. Yes, I am making a strong charge, but like my advice above with regards to what some my think my motivations are, I don’t imply it, I state it flat out. I find this philosophically no different than the recent PR push by the LDS to be just another Christian denomination.

But there is another far larger reason why generally I no longer debate this issue, and that is because there is a mentality amongst SOME in this camp that are spoiling for a fight - they are some of the most fanatically obsessive people I have ever run into. This of course is not true across the board, but it is a not uncommon experience with me, and I have learned, also with others. So this peculiar zealous obsessiveness and cagey tactics from SOME - CERTAINLY NOT ALL is another reason why I do not generally debate this issue.

It is not just myself and those that I know that have observed this type of behaviour, but I was dumbstruck to read Gentry’s view on this in the recent book When Shall These Things Be? (Keith Mathison editor):

I have seen immature Christians swallow the system whole and then become intoxicated with a cultish arrogance. Many pastors have called me for counsel on how to deal with combative hyper-preterist zealots who have entered their congregations and disrupted the unity and peace of the church. I have seen ministerial friends forsake their orthodox preterism for fear of being confused with the extremists. I have read scathing reviews of hyper-preterist materials that heap scorn on any preterist approach. I have witnessed hyper-preterists causing problems because of their obsessive single-mindedness… I have endured an overwhelming flood of email challenges from hyper-preterists because of my disagreement with their views. I have weathered logically confused, excruciatingly redundant, wearisome responses to my writings from hyper-preterist theolouges. [continuing in footnote] One five-page pamphlet I wrote was entitled, A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism, (1995). It has generated scores of rebuttals, one of which runs around 160 pages. I once facetiously warned Andrew Sandlin, editor of The Chalcedon Report, to be cautious in responding to the hyper-preterists because they are unemployed and have Internet access. After he published his article, he wrote to me within a week and said he had discovered what I meant. [end of footnote] Hyper-preterism is a small, but active, militant, and growing theological movement. Its enthusiastic adherents loudly demand that those who disagree with them stop their full-time labors and deal with all their questions - or die the death of a thousand emails.

Also importantly though, my personal interest and ministry has never been debating those I believe to be outside the historic faith. My heart has always been for the brethren, and my time is spent primarily on issues within orthodoxy and with post-evangelization (equipping and discipling) rather than pre-evangelization (apologetics directed towards heretical groups or atheists). In fact I rarely have sustained debates with atheists. I don’t as a general rule debate them - nor Mormons - nor Muslims - and when I do, it is generally for the benefit of brethren that I know are watching or participating. My practice is consistent. my last reason for this stance is simply that I do not believe it is my burden or call to participate in the arena of contra-Hymenæan debate. I do it when I have to. I also have engaged in several long-term correspondences with persons sincerely trying to escape from this paradigm and those desperately wounded by it, which of course fits with my ministry to the brethren. And like with any debate - there is always another contender, and another, and another. There is no end except where I draw the line, and indeed I have. I never say never, but hardly ever.

And finally here is the most compelling reasons…. The very Scripture that condemns this view (via Hymenæas and Philetus - 2 Timothy 2:16) says, “But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.” I deal with this doctrine of demons only insofar as it assists the sheep. I do not give legitimacy to these views by engaging them, I shun such profane and idle babblings. I am very friendly with many of the persons - I shun the DOCTRINE.

Now as an addition in the beginning of 2007, I would remiss if I did not point out that some of the very persons that I thought demonstrated these tendencies the most who are leaders in the hyperpreterist movement has clearly moved away from such behaviour, and I am on very friendly personal grounds with these guys, and we differentiate between being personally friendly and doctrinally hostile. There is a difference that sometimes we moderns are too immature to differentiate. I welcome and thank these guys for the much improved relations, a great deal of which came from one writing to me personally so that we could talk and put the unnecessary personal ickiness behind us. One is shallow indeed if only the bad and critical are mentioned, but not the good and praiseworthy.

What about futurism? Is it heretical?

Short answer? Absolutely not. Longer answer? I oppose it in debate because I believe it is wrong, and wrong ideas have consequences. However, I would never separate fellowship from a futurist, and respect many futurist debaters, scholars, and friends deeply.