The Two Ingredients of an Effective Refutation of Hyper Preterism

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

APRIL 18, 2008

The primary focus of this blog is opposing inferior doctrines of Hyper Preterism which incorrectly choose AD70 as their focal point. It is the working assumption that, and the purpose of this post to explain why, the most effective way to accomplish this task is by advocating superior doctrines which focus on Jesus Christ.

Others have made the mistake of opposing the historical focus of Hyper Preterism by advocating their historical focus of Futurism — but this is ineffective. Even though the opposition to the false doctrine of Hyper Preterism may have been effective, that advantage is lost in not successfully completing the circuit by advocating sound doctrine.

False doctrine may end up appearing sound as a result of this ineffective attempt at refutation, and the victory for false doctrine on this technicality often leaves its followers mistakenly believing that the doctrine they advocate is sound!

Follow up:

In debate over theological doctrines, opposition and advocacy are often mingled and confused like this, usually resulting in stalemates. If the clash is in the form of a public debate, then the “home crowd” assumes success by the inability of other false doctrine to refute theirs.

This brings up the need to carefully distinguish between the two ingredients that are needed for a truly effective overthrow of false doctrine:

A) Effective opposition to false doctrine, and
B) Effective advocacy of sound doctrine.

The effective refutation of any system or doctrine of theology requires the successful combination of these two elements: Opposition first and Advocacy second.

Opposition focuses its attention strictly upon the “putting down” of one idea:

2 Cor. 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ

Advocacy, on the other hand, focuses its attention on offering an alternative to that idea or system that has been opposed:

Luke 12:18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

Shared Opposition Does NOT Equal Shared Advocacy

At, I have ceaselessly cataloged and archived writings which are critical of full preterism for over a decade (13 years in 2008). During that time, I have seen a lot of very poor scholarship used in an attempt to “refute full preterism.” Sadly, it was this deficient scholarship which prolonged my captivity by the strong hold of those imaginations. Had not the weakness of the attempted refutations been so consistent, I may have broken free years earlier. His timing is perfect in all things indeed ; however, the defecit of sound doctrine remains — which continues to prolong the confinement of my friends (but fewer all the time, I rejoice to report).

Thousands of pages have been wasted in opposition to full preterism due to the advocacy of doctrines which are just as mistaken (pot, meet kettle). Futurist offerings have been, for the most part, very weak. In this, I am in agreement with Hyper Preterists! However, one thousand shared oppositions on the first part don’t equal one shared advocacy on the second part.

The same holds true for others who may likewise oppose Hyper Preterism. Just because there is common opposition doesn’t mean that there is a single point of common advocacy. Many are critical of the fact that I even interact with others critical of Hyper Preterism who choose to use low brow tactics. It is presented as though we are all peas in a pod ; however, I must insist upon my independence from them, for the same reason that I ask Dispensationalists to allow me independence from Hyper Preterism, even though we share a common opposition.

This blog’s opposition to the historical focus of Futurism does not equal advocacy of the historical focus of Preterism. Conversely (listen up!), this blog’s opposition to the historical focus of Preterism does not equal advocacy of the historical focus of Futurism !

As it stands, there are many areas of opposition to Futurism which I share with Hyper Preterism. Just like a Hyper Preterist, it makes me groan to hear a Futurist oppose the Preterist view of Revelation 1:1 (“things which must shortly come to pass”) by declaring “these things haven’t happened yet in the 1,900 years since the Apocalypse was written, but when they do, they will happen quickly.” However, that does not mean that I agree with the Preterist interpretation of Revelation 1:1 as a time text! Opposition does not equal advocacy.

What I hope to offer at is a successful and effective completion of the circuit of opposition and advocacy. (Amateur theology is only my hobby, though, so please be patient during the amateur baseball season.)

Part of the method that will be used in both opposition and advocacy will be quoting from authors which are respected by Preterists. This will include a lot of John Gill, N.T. Wright, John Lightfoot. What is best about these fellows is that they share many points of advocacy, while still pointing away from the hyper preterist message. On the same level, though taking it a bit farther, I will be quoting from Bible translations, such as the Weymouth, which are considered more “pret-friendly” than others, and are therefore more highly respected by those I am opposing.

Finally, I will eventually be quoting from Hyper Preterists themselves — and not always in a positive light — regarding areas of mutual opposition as well as mutual advocacy, but also to demonstrate the proper representation of their views. You won’t find me misrepresenting the quotes or comments of those embracing HyP — and if you think I am, please notify me! I hope that full preterists can see how forthright and credible doing all of this actually is.

Anyway can quote from Darby to provide a Dispensationalist point, but quoting from Daniel Whitby to accomplish the same goal has much greater credibility among Dispensationalists! Therefore, you may see me quoting from Simmons or Fenley or Noe or even Stevens.

Building upon previous successful opposition to Hyper Preterism on the first part (though sometimes written by people with whom I do not doctrinally agree), this blog intends to offer…

A) Sound arguments opposing, in the first part, the chronological Hyper Preterist narrative which is focused on events long past

while providing

B) Sound arguments advocating, in the second part, an ultimately achronological Idealist narrative which is focused on the illimitable person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ

…thereby accomplishing the goal of presenting materials for effective refutation of “Total Fulfillment in AD70” doctrines (and a fair amount of “Partial Fulfillment in AD70” doctrines, too!).