BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM
It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
Sticking To The Issues?
By Jack C. Scott Jr.
Excuse my facetious embellishment, but let me say clearly as we did in the mountains at home; "IT JUST AIN'T SO"!!! The facts of just who it is that will not allow an open airing and discussion of these issues will become clearer to all as time goes on and as these men are pressured to allow us to confront them through the forums they are using to spread their falsehoods. The fact is, actions speak louder than words! The books by brother King, brother Preston's book on II Peter 3, the annual Eschatology Seminar, and this periodical as well as other projects all bespeak our willingness and efforts to be open with this material and encourage critique and discussion. These avenues have been pursued at great financial and emotional expense by many, but especially the Parkman Road church of Christ in Warren Ohio, and Max King.
Most importantly, it must be underscored that these efforts have been pursued to provide a positive "Christ-like" forum in which to address these issues, but not for that reason alone. We have been forced to employ these sources because those who have taken it upon themselves to attack us have almost without exception refused us the right and ability to respond to their attacks whether publicly or through their periodicals and journals. Especially has this been the case with Wayne Jackson and his little monthly paper called the Christian Courier. Others from the past and present could be noted, but Jackson's efforts have been the most obvious and the most personal to this writer.
Jackson has persisted with one emotive diatribe after another over the last two years. The bulk of his efforts have simply been innuendo, slander and misrepresentation, many times about what we believe and almost always about how we have reached our conclusions. For someone who claims association with the Restoration movement and it's ideals, Jackson has absolutely turned his back on the spirit of the restoration heritage relative to honorable controversy.
When one researches the great periodicals of the Restoration movement, one sees that controversy was in no way avoided. Quite the contrary, it was perceived to be healthy and constructive toward growth. Neither did these men avoid naming men and what they publicly taught (which I might add is not our protest) when there was apparent disagreement between views. But what one will not find in today's defenders of "orthodoxy" such as Jackson has set himself up to be, is the willingness that was shown by those great men and papers of the past, which was the allowance of those being critiqued (in Jackson's case "attacked") access to the same medium to respond. One can search such papers as the Millennial Harbinger by Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone's Christian Messenger, and Walter Scott's Evangelist to see that this is true. As a matter of practice it was considered the only noble thing to do.
This writer and also brother Don Preston have both sought access to brother Jackson's audiences to answer the false claims he has consistently made against us personally, and against the Preterist views. But just as consistently, he has denied us that right and privilege, and the way he did so lacks any honor and dignity. His responses to both of us was simply to denigrate and disparage us personally and to suggest that it would be beneath his dignity and stature to meet us in some honorable forum of controversy--that we were just not of his caliber (see the quote below).
I am convinced that our great honest and discerning brotherhood, regardless of their theological view, can see through such an un-Christian facade. If we lack any influence and power of persuasion, and if we are so unworthy of his time and efforts why is he spending "so much time" on something so unworthy of "his time"? The fact is that Jackson has spent a good deal of time writing (at least four issues of his paper, and a complete new book of 83 pages), and has lectured extensively from California to Alabama on this subject at various forums. One is forced to ask, "what is wrong with this picture"?
In a recent issue of the Courier he states: "We do not want to give this heretical sect more attention than it deserves, but it is a fact that it continues to exert its divisive influence both in this country and abroad. In recent months it has disrupted and/or divided churches in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon and Texas" (Christian Courier, March 91, page 41). As Paul Harvey (the famous radio commentator) encourages on his daily broadcast, you need to get the "Rest Of The Story" as to what took place in each of those situations to make a clear evaluation as to what happened. If the reader would like contacts to get the rest of the story that could be arranged easily. But let us go on and see how Jackson deals with, and treats brothers in Christ with whom he disagrees, and perhaps you will see who it is that is responsible for the strife and divisions, seeing that his approach is representative of many attempting to "expose," but at the same time avoid us.
Note in the following series of quotations taken from Jackson's paper and book the continual use of degrading descriptions to portray to his readers and listeners the characteristics of the Preterist adherents. We are called a "heretical sect," "radically unorthodox," "King disciples," and "realized eschatologists..." who are "...very secretive in their initiation efforts." (C.C., March 91). In others we have been described as "radicals," "uninformed zealots," and as those who use a "...type of fanciful textual manipulation that has characterized the Max King movement." (C.C., July 90). Still again in another series of issues we were called; "utterly bizarre," as those without a "smattering of Bible knowledge," as propagators of "heresy," as a "sect," and as "disciples of Max King." Many others could be cited, but to top it off, he describes us as a "...certain class of preachers who seem to be unable to find the degree of fame they seek except by advocating the bizarre." (This one would absolutely be hilarious if not so sad. The fact is that all of the men who have been open in their views have known that such openness would severely harm their popularity.) And then he describes brother King as our "modern apostle."
Three things are clear by such manifest ungodly behavior; first, other than bringing this to the attention of our readers we do not intend to waste our time honoring all of these childish attacks with a response. We trust the bulk of our great brotherhood with the ability to judge with righteous judgment (Jn.7:24). Secondly, it is clear that this is nothing but a "dodge" to keep from having to confront us publicly and to attempt to keep people from honestly getting the rest of the story. If Jackson and those of his ilk can paint a hideous enough picture of us, they feel they can keep you from contacting us or researching our material. (This writer knows that this has been the approach of some preachers, that is, to warn against even looking into or reading what we say.) Thirdly, and most distressingly, he impugns large segments of our brotherhood as being mindless and unable to study for themselves.
How is it that brethren all over the country are reaching these same views independently? Brother Jackson cannot believe that such is really the case for any honest reasons. He cannot accept that so many would disagree with him and suggest that he is wrong, so he makes this irresponsible accusation in the March 91 issue of his paper: "...they have evolved a covert strategy that seeks to quietly spread their novel theory until such a time as congregational take-overs can be effected. The method of indoctrination is so similar in various parts of the country that one cannot but suspect that it has been orchestrated." To say that such is vicious and irresponsible is an understatement!!! If such were the business world, Jackson would face massive slander and defamation litigation and would lose! He has no proof whatsoever for such accusations, and in fact, honest investigation will prove exactly the opposite. What is the reason for this growth? Faithful children of God, faithfully reading the same book--the Bible, and a growing dissatisfaction with the inability of the traditional view to answer countless questions that no longer can be glossed over or avoided. These detractors are attempting apparently to keep the realm of biblical exposition as their exclusive realm. That is exactly the opposite of what has always energized the efforts of restoration.
You will find consistently that those who employ these techniques consider someone to be a "capable" Bible student with at least a "smattering of Bible knowledge," only if you first agree with their conclusions. When you check and get the rest of the story, you will find that in many of those congregations mentioned, this was not started by disgruntled preachers seeking "popularity," but rather by people who never had even heard of Max King, Scott, Preston, Bell, or anyone else. They were just studying their Bibles for themselves, and when questioning some of the traditional views of eschatology for what they saw as a more consistent application, many were accused of holding to "Kingism," and they had no idea what they were being accused of, or of who Max King was. Remember that only these folks and those who agree with them apparently have the "ability" to study the Bible for themselves.
Also it is interesting to see that in many of these congregations where there have been troubles, it has not been from some disgruntled illiterate, but has most often been among those of the leadership ranks (i.e., elders, deacons, and preachers). And one will also find that the division, if there was one, was not the result of inordinate pressure by the Preterist side, but by the other side that could not answer our views, and who wanted most of the time to even forbid any study or discussion of the issue at all, EVEN PRIVATELY! When an attempt was made to have a discussion on these congregational issues, most often those (even elders) holding the traditional view admitted their inability to answer and either wanted to, or did bring in "big-name preachers" from the outside to do what they could not do. It is absolutely inexcusable for elders who lack the ability to stop that which is supposedly false doctrine (which as every Bible student knows is one of the major qualifications of an Elder; see I Tim. 3; Titus 1) to bring in from the outside some big name to resolve what is a congregational issue.
It is also quite revealing that Jackson was invited by the Maxwell Avenue congregation in Ardmore OK to come in and confront their preacher, Don Preston, in a surprise debate (forum), to show the "obvious" falsehood of the Preterist view and "straighten out" this preacher. Jackson refused! Can you imagine a man so "concerned for the church" that he does all of this writing and lecturing about us, and a man so convinced of our inability to handle the word of God, refusing an opportunity to provide such an incalculable service when he is apparently so qualified? If brother Jackson really believes the things he says about his felt responsibilities to expose such errors, I would suggest that he ought to write himself up for such gross negligence.
As it was, another "well-known" brotherhood preacher, Buster Dobbs from Houston, TX, was brought in, and over a period of four nights had his arguments met and dismantled in a meticulous step by step fashion. (It is not intended for the reader to believe that I am linking Brother Dobbs with all of the tactics of Wayne Jackson; I do not believe such is the case. While he was soundly answered by brother Preston, at least he was willing to enter into the controversy in an honorable way.) So distressing was this exposure of the traditional argument that when brother Dobbs and his assistant, Don Cain of Baytown, TX, were contacted by another congregation in the Baytown area that holds the Preterist view about having a similar event in that area, these brethren refused. Again we ask, What is wrong with this picture?
Jackson, in his July 89 issue of the Courier, made the following statement and offer: "We would suggest that perhaps some open discussion-forums, where arguments could be laid side-by-side might be profitable." Yet when this offer was accepted by both this writer and brother Don Preston, this was the response that he gave in a personal letter answering my request: "Jack, did you go to Warren (i.e., Warren Ohio for the Eschatology Seminar, J.C.S.), and get so pumped up and you are now practically `beside yourself' in your irresponsible suggestion that you and I have a debate? Tell me, exactly why would I want to debate with you (emphasis his)? You've never even had your first one yet. Moreover, you have no stature in the King movement generally, and your influence in the Bay area is absolutely nil. I am confident that you only made the challenge knowing how ludicrous it really was. I am sure that Don Preston told you what I told him; namely that I am not interested in debating with one of Max King's underlings." (Personal letter dated 7/90).
Is there any consistency and honor when a man responds like this after he has lectured and written so much about us and our "danger" to the brotherhood? A few years ago there was a sizable disagreement between brother Jackson and brother Ira Rice over some matters that affected some churches in California. When brother Rice wrote about brother Jackson in his paper, Contending For The Faith, he at least did the noble thing and allowed Jackson the space to respond. When this writer asked for the same privilege from Jackson with the Christian Courier, he was flatly refused.
It is believed that the integrity of such attacks and tactics will be clearly understood by all. It is our fervent prayer that men of "honor" and "integrity" will step forward willing to openly discuss these issues with us in whatever forum is expedient. It is our desire to have these issues discussed by capable representatives from both the traditional view(s) and the Preterist view; and that this information can be put in the capable hands of our great brotherhood to honestly evaluate for themselves.
I personally feel no compunction to offer any more responses to such un-Christian journalistic tactics as have been examined in this article. Others could also be cited but such would accomplish no more than this has. This writer felt it necessary, however, at least once to remind all addressing these issues that the cause of Christ addressed by these journals (The Living Presence as well) demands a higher caliber and nobler spirit than that witnessed in the quotations that I have cited.
Let us therefore go on and agree that we have differences of view relative to the matters of Covenantal and Eschatological prophecy and fulfillment. But let us do it with a Christ-like disposition. Let it never be stated again that we desire "secretive covert ways." We are ready and quite able to confront the traditional view publicly, honestly, and kindly, so that the Lord's Church can continue growing and continue challenging its members to new and refreshed study and growth. It will be our attempt now to deal with the honest questions and considerations that we see expressed, regardless of the manner in which they are expressed, and also to discuss in open forums our differences with "honest" men desiring to address these issues with the welfare and growth of the cause of Christ in mind.
2301 Monte Verde Dr
What do YOU think ?
Date: 11 Jun 2010
Date: 22 Aug 2010
Date: 23 Sep 2011
Date: 23 Sep 2011
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996