Customer Reviews

When Shall These Things Be?: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

I was a hyper-preterist. Then I read this book. I read it in order to refute it. I could not. I can attest to the accuracy of the contributor's statements regarding hyper-preterism, and I'm thankful I was pulled from the clutches of it before I had sunk deeper.

This book constitutes the first detailed and in-depth response to the movement known as "full preterism" but better called "hyper preterism." Naturally, because it is the first, it will stumble in some areas. But there are also positives.

By far the best contributions are the chapters by Gentry ("The Historical Problem with Hyper-Preterism"), Hill ("Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem's Fall"), Wilson ("Sola Scriptura, Creeds, and Ecclesiastical Authority"), and Stimple ("Hyper-Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body"). They are the best because they are tightly reasoned and exegetically based (I don't know if I've seen more scripture quoted in a book before. They can constitute a third or half of a page on occasion).

The remaining chapters are certainly ok, but not spectacular. That said, there is one chapter that completely stands out as being the worst contribution to this book, but also the worst explanation of the prophetic time texts I have read to date. It is Pratt's chapter ("Hyper-Preterism and Unfolding Biblical Eschatology"). The entire chapter's argument can be presented as follows: "Biblical prophesy and prediction do not need to be fulfilled in the manner, or the timing, made by the initial prophesy." Thus, his best defense becomes the worst offense. No, his best defense is to have no offense at all. Pratt's argument seems to go like this: "when confronted with a dissenting opinion to orthodoxy, we ought to exterminate everyone on earth."

The entire premise of his poorly-argued and naive exegesis is that, if we can establish that prophesies don't need to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied, we can simply disregard the "soon" time-texts cited by the hyper-preterists because even though they were prophesied to occur at a certain time, Jesus decided not to fulfill it at that time without informing anyone. (How is this different from simply claiming Jesus was in error, as many liberals do? Either way, intentionally or accidentally, Jesus still didn't return when He SAID He would.)

Yes, this idea might stop hyper-preterism dead in its tracks, but it also stops every other eschatology as well. Were we to follow this suggestion to its logical conclusion, we would not be able to even claim a FUTURE return of Christ, since, if Jesus can alter the fulfillment of a prophesy (turning it, then, into nothing more than a guess or a hope) he can certainly decide not to fulfill a given prophesy at all! Every eschatological system collapses into a pile of rubble. Prophesy, by its very definition, must come to pass exactly as stated (unless God explicitely states he's going to alter it, as He does in the OT) or it is not a prophesy.

Overall, the book has a schizophenic feel to it, since its contributors are of all eschatological systems, including amillenialism, premillenialism, postmillenialism, and orthodox preterist postmillenialism. Some contributors attack beliefs that are orthodox preteristic in nature and not restricted to hyper-preterists (such as Nero's being the Beast of Revelation and Revelation being written before A.D. 70), including legitimate orthodox beliefs under the blanket of hyper-preterism (without addressing the evidence amassed by orthodox preterists to defend these things). Such is Hill who (p. 63) categorically denies the pre-A.D. 70 date for the completion of Revelation, without presenting evidence, nor acknowledging that his fellow contributor, Ken Gentry, was the man who first proposed and defended the early date for Revelation (in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell"). Neither does Hill explain why Gentry is wrong in his theological, exegetical, and historical analyses. He simply states an opinion.

Had the contributors been a little more closely tied eschatologically, these contradictions would have been avoided. Also, they might have avoided criticing orthodox preterism in the process of refuting hyper-preterism (when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, I suppose). Still, they attempt to also refute ideas put forward by fellow orthodox preterist Gary DeMar (while never making mention of his significant contribution to orthodox preterist postmillenialism). Further, where are DeMar, Sandlin, North, and other's contributions to this book? Their insights would have proved enlightening as well.

Taken as a whole, though, the majority of the book is worth reading and constititutes a good first book on the problems with hyper-preterism. No doubt more will follow.

"When Shall These Things Be" is an important book that has been released by P&R Publishing to expose a new doctrine that is confusing many young Christians: HyperPreterism. It is a "must read" for evangelicals who are concerned with aberrant theologies afflicting the church.

The editor has assembled a fine cast of noted Reformed scholars, including most prominently: Charles E. Hill (University of Cambridge, Ph.D.), Associate Professor of NT at Reformed Theological Seminary; Simon Kistermaker (Th.D., Free University of Amsterdam), Emeritus Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary and author of the famous "NT Commentary" set from Baker; Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (Th. D. Harvard University), Chairman of OT Department at Reformed Theological Seminary; and Robert B. Strimple (Ph. D., University of Toronto), professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary.

The book focuses on key heresies associated with the HyperPreterist movement that has arisen in the past 10 years or so. The movement denies: the physical resurrection of the dead, the future second coming of Christ, the future judgment of all men, and an end to the temporal world in which we live. It also exposes some of the internal contradictions in this amalgamated nouveau theology, while showing that HyperPreterism is seeking to overthrow the universal faith of the Christian church.

The HyperPreterist movement is demonstrating the dangers of a "zeal without knowledge." I urge the reader of my review which endorses the book to read those reviews that are criticizing it. Those critical reviews are an open window into the caustic spirit associated with the movement as well as the lack of reasoned reflection necessary to carry on theological discourse. If you do not believe me now, just wait until a convert to movement comes to your church.

I would especially note how the negative reviews are copying the positive reviews of the book and then replacing key words in them. They do this to re-orient the reviewer comments so as to serve as a criticism of the book! Apparently the zealous adherents to HyperPreterism cannot even write their own reviews.

It is certain that wolves wear sheep's clothing. This attire is not for beauty, but deception unto destruction. This new book lifts the fleece and allows the reader to see that the hyper-preterism position beneath is wolf-like. This unorthodox twist on eschatology denies essential tenets of the Christian faith. Those who hold such positions are not friends of the Good Shepherd, and certainly have no love for His sheep. This book reveals the wolf and protects the sheep. In this regard, it accords with the ministry of the Savior.

The view critiqued in this book holds that there is no bodily resurrection and no future literal second coming of Jesus Christ. Yet, adherants to the nonsensical views of hyper-preterism desire to wear the tag "Orthodox Christian". Those who deny the essential tenets of the faith once for all delivered to the saints are neither orthodox nor Christian. This book reveals wolves for what they are - wolves.

Dr. Gentry begins by giving more than ample evidence that the historic position of the church is well-stated and clear. To deny the weight or his thorough documentation is to demonstrate an unwillingness to see the evidence. Hyper-preterism is a novelty. Any movement that desires to isolate itself from the universal confessions of the faith should be seen as suspect. Gentry clearly shows that this infantile position is not historically represented within orthodoxy.

Dr. Hill's chapter is also well-documented and convincing. He does an excellent job of evaluating extra-Biblical material in the years immediately following the age of the apostles. The view of the hyper-preterists is not in this writing. Thus, as Dr. Hill states, it either was not taught, or the apostles were unable to pass on the body of doctrinal truth that Jesus entrusted unto them. Dr. Hill shows that the hyper-preterism position states that the age of fulfillment came in AD 70, yet no writers can show that this occurred in the early church record. This is a devastating critique. The only way to avoid its impact is to make the opinions of isolated individualism the determining factor of exegetical soundness - a rather tenuous position.

Dr. Pratt also does a marvelous job of showing that prophetic fulfillment is not always easy to discern due to intervening historical contingencies. His handling of the seventy year prophecy in Jeremiah's writing displays a masterful holistic approach to interpreting the text. Dr. Pratt reveals that it is not simple to determine the outworking of the time texts of Scripture. Often there are intervening circumstances that are not clear. His chapter shows that one premise of hyper-preterism (that the time texts of the New Testament are clear and easily discernable) is not as stable as one might imagine.

Dr. Mathison also reveals the many ways respected scholarship handles the time texts of the Scriptures. His thorough discussion leaves one humbled by the various acceptable views, yet confident that orthodox Christianity has never waffled on the bodily resurrection or the literal second coming of the physically raised and glorified Christ. His handling of Acts 1 shows the fallacies of any view that denies Jesus' return would be like unto His departure. Dr. Mathison shows that hyper-preterism is outside the range of possibilities within responsible Biblical exegesis.

Dr. Kistemaker shows that the hyper-preterist position on the early date for the writing of the Revelation is on shaky ground. The hyper-preterism position stands or falls on the absoluteness of the assertion that this book must be written before AD 70. Dr. Kistemaker amply demonstrates that such a position cannot irrefutably be held. He exegetes a number of crucial passages, showing that an alternative methodology does justice to the book's intent.

Rev. Wilson artfully defends the creedal formulation "Sola Scriptura" and shows the contradictory character of the hyper-preterists who claim to believe in this creedal statement. His writing is winsome, rational, and convincing. A discerning reader will perceive the cogency of his arguments. It is clearly contradictory for hyper-preterists to deny creedalism then affirm Sola Scriptura. It is also clearly contradictory for hyper-preterists to affirm the canon of Scripture but deny that there is any authority in Christ's church to recognize and define such things.

Dr. Strimple's wonderful defense of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection is worth the price of the book. Dr. Strimple shows the nonsensical character of any view that would deviate from the clear hope of the Christian, bodily resurrection and the glorification of believers and the earth. This article shows the silliness of the verbal gymnastics the hyper-preterists perform to avoid the clear teaching of the Bible. At the end of the article, it is demonstrated that the term "heresy" is rightly ascribed to the teaching of the hyper-preterists.

In isolation, each article may only be partially convincing, dependent upon the subject matter handled therein. The cumulative effect, however, is substantial and weighty. Each individual article shows yet another area of weakness in the hyper-preterist position. The big picture the whole reveals is that hyper-preterism is a belief system that is outside of orthodox Christianity.

Hyper-preterism has been weighed in the balances, and has been found wanting. This book will be an asset to rescue sheep that might come under the deceptive sway of this movement. Bravo! Hats off to this distinguished group of scholars who have loved the church enough to warn the flock of this danger!

Finally a nationally noted publisher has engaged the debate against a new Internet-based theological movement. In "When Shall These Things Be" we find a book by several noted evangelical and Reformed scholars who throw a spotlight on the growing Hyperpreterist movement. I am thankful that Keith Mathison of R. C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries has assembled this important book for us.

As strange as it seems, Hyperpreterism is a delusive movement that claims to be evangelical. Yet at the same time it charges that Christianity has been absolutely wrong for 2000 years on several foundational doctrines. Only recently have a random assortment of Internet-based theologues associated with this heretical movement discovered that the Christian church has mistakenly believed in the future second coming of Christ to resurrect all men and effect the day of judgment. Not so, says this militant movement. Actually (they say) Christ returned in A.D. 70, never to return again! The only resurrection we can expect is when we are converted. At that moment we are spiritually resurrected (never to be physically resurrected).

Although Christians have long debated detailed chronologies associated with the Lord's glorious Second Advent (premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism), never have we seen such a strange view as this new innovation. Christ has already returned, and his church did not even know it! A few (not all!) of the contributors to Mathison's book are orthodox preterists who believe that some NT prophecies focus on A.D. 70 (for example, Matt. 24), while allowing that many others prophesy the future Second Coming.

Please do not simply shrug your shoulders and write off this new movement as silly. They mean business: hundreds of them are infiltrating local churches to try to encourage followers. The best offense is a good defense, and Mathison has given us good ammunition for a defense of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Don't trade your future inheritance for a "pot of message." The stew pot of Hyperpreterism has the wrong message.

As will become clear later in this review, I have a considerably negative view of hyper-preterism and not just because I think it's unbiblical. It is a movement that has gained cyberspace traction over the last number of years now and in my view, represents the worst of what can happen when internet sites are considered to be equally viable in terms of their information and credibility.

This book is a compilation of essays from a mostly Reformed perspective written by a variety of scholars. As such, some essays are better than others, and the reader should expect to find disagreement between the contributors on matters of eschatology.

By far the best contribution in this book is delivered by Hill. A person without an in-depth knowledge of eschatology nonetheless has the ability to ask a rather basic but telling question where full preterism is concerned - if Jesus' Second and final Coming occurred in 70 AD, and we are now supposedly living in the new heavens and new earth, why is it that no document we know of written by any Christian around this time ever recognized that such an apolocalyptic event took place? Is it reasonable to think that a small and mostly undistinguished group of people 2,000 years later have identified what nobody at the time knew about and the historic Christian church for 2,000 years has been unaware of? According to full preterism, the answer is a resounding 'yes'. Hill tackles this question with meticulous scholarship and documentation, coupled with painfully probing questions about how such a view could possibly make any sense to anyone. Hill is especially qualified to deal with this subject matter, as he is widely recognized as one of the best conservative patristic scholars around, and his work on the Johannine Corpus in particular is considered first rate. Nobody on the full preterist side even remotely possesses the credentials in this area that Hill does, and it shows in his essay. It is simply a devastating critique.

Kistemaker's contribution is also outstanding. His essay is a truncated version of his award-winning commentary on the Book of Revelation, and I think it is decisively persuasive in debunking the creative interpretations of the full preterist folks. Strimple's contribution is also quite good I thought. Pratt's contribution is good, but could have been better, because while laying out a fairly good approach to how to deal with Old Testament prophecy, he falls a bit short in actually critiquing the full preterist approach on this question. He gets into this a little bit, but not sufficiently in my view. As such, his essay struck me as being a bit incomplete.

I'm giving the book 4 stars because the partial preterist contributions in here could have stood for considerable improvement. The first major essay in the book is Gentry's essay on creedal orthodoxy. For many full preterists, this is where the rubber meets the road. They know their view does not conform to the ecumenical creeds of the church, so they not only have to deny the creeds themselves, but they have to find a way to argue that any Christian who places any creedance in the creeds is actually denying Sola Scriptura and basing their Christianity on human tradition. Gentry in particular has been in the crosshairs of a number of online articles written by full preterists. Gentry's essay attempts a response, but it was clear that he had succumbed to taking the whole thing a bit personally, and where systematic argument and sober analysis would have hit the spot, the reader will instead find a lot of back and forth accusations that don't really address the serious questions at issue here. Mathison probably would have been a better pick to tackle the 'denial of Sola Scriptura' question than Gentry. Further, as I will mention below, the book's look at full preterism is not penetrating as it could and should have been in other areas as well.

In the end, I recommend this book as a mostly effective antidote to full preterism. In my view, full preterism presents us with a revealing object lesson about what happens when eschatology is conducted in isolation - isolation from the Christian church as a whole throughout its history, and isolation from other areas of theology. Full preterism, by definition, has no Biblically based ecclesiology, and no Biblically based pneumatology. If the Christian church has been dead wrong for the last 2,000 years about the central event in the consummation of all history, what kind of doctrine of the church are we left with? If the church has been wrong for its entire history on this question, what are we to say of the ability of the Holy Spirit to preserve his church and lead it in truth and righteousness? Full preterism, by logical deduction, cannot affirm anything of the kind. In order to preserve its eschatological imperatives, full preterism places itself in the dubious position of necessarily arguing for an impotent (rather than omnipotent) Holy Spirit, and for a church that does not have Christ as its cornerstone. Full preterism ought to scare the death out of Christians who believe in the power of the Holy Spirit (as Scripture teaches over and over again) and believe that the church truly is the Bride of Christ and the primary instrument of bringing God's Kingdom to the ends of the earth (which Scripture teaches repeatedly). Not only can full preterism not affirm these things, but they have to attack everyone (and I do mean everyone) who does. As a rule, whenever a Christian hears some person or some movement proclaim that they've discovered something essential to true Christianity that the Christian church hasn't known about or has been wrong about for 2,000 years, that should immediately make us suspicious - because anybody can make that claim. When we further discover that these individuals are coarse and fiercely divisive, are not seminary trained, have difficulty getting published, and exercise enormously irresponsible scholarship to bolster their views, that really ought to seal the deal. Well, this is a nutshell of the full preterist movement. Nothing more really needs to be said, in my view.

Here is a book a friend of my loaned me awhile back. I had heard that a new doctrine was arising in some Christian circles. This new doctrine teaches that Christ has already returned and that Christians have already been resurrected. I couldn't believe my friend's allegations at first, but this book did a marvelous job in documenting the heresy beginning to circulate.

Mathison is an employee of Dr. R. C. Sproul, one of my favorite theologians. Mathison has written other books which I enjoy. I am glad he has assembled this group of theologians to expose hyper-preterism. They did a wonderful job.

I was especially thankful that the book put the heretical problem in historical context. As Christians we often tend to approach Scripture individualistically, as if we were the final judge of truth and error. But the chapter on creeds (ch. 1), on history (ch. 2), and on the canon of the NT (ch. 6) were extremely helpful. These chapters remind us that not everyone who thumps the Bible loudly is being true to Scripture.

I also found several of the earlier reviews very interesting. It seems obvious that some group called "Healing Leaves" is making a concerted effort to keep Christians from reading the book. And judging from the character of their reviews, I believe it is easy to see another reason for alarm with this new movement.

For some inexplicable reason, the hyperpreterist reviewers of this book only mention Mathison and Gentry -- two of the seven authors in this work. The other five hold prominent positions in theological seminaries. It is odd that they generally attack only Gentry and Mathison (who are both holders of master's degrees in theology from Reformed Theological Seminary, as well as doctoral degrees from Whitefield Seminary). It is odd because Gentry and Mathison are preteristic in many respects. Obviously it is painful for hyperpreterists to see that some of their positions can be fitted into evangelical theology without becoming heretical.

I recommend getting this book and using it as a small group Bible study guide. There is much in it that helps understand this new pseudo-biblical movement. I believe your friends would be interested in studying it -- just for practice in witnessing to cults.

I have just finished reading this excellent book edited by Keith Mathison of Ligonier Ministries. He has assembled a capable body of respected Reformed scholars. They have provided an enlightening analysis and devastating critique of a new and growing abberant theology.

Hyperpreterism teaches that for 2000 years the Church has been wrong in expecting a future Second Coming of Christ, a future physical resurrection of the body, and a consummate New Heavens and New Earth. Rather, they teach that the Second Advent occurred 40 years after the ascension of Christ and that it effected the resurrection of deceased believers (which was spiritual only), the spiritual resurrection of living believers, and that it established the New Creation in its fullness.

Pratt demonstrates the remarkable situation that prevails if Hyperpreterists are correct: The resurrection and new creation occurred in the first century -- yet not one Christian writer from that period or just after it or up until recent times knew this occurred! Not even those who lived through the events!

At first when I read the negative reviews of this book, I was dismayed at their tone. Then it dawned on me: This is exactly what should be expected. Mathison's book warns that a new cult may be developing and that the promoters of the strange doctrines are not trained in biblical languages and theological research. Now I see that the Hyperpreterists are loudly proving that this is so. Imagine what your church would be like if this doctrine and this attitude captured a few members.

Although the new theological movement of Hyperpreterism is small, it is also tenacious. It teaches some very strange things.

For instance, did you know that Christ's Second Coming occurred in A.D. 70? And all Christians of the day missed it (See Hill's chapter for this unusual position of Hyperpreterism).

Did you know that despite the physical forces at work on the earth, it will NEVER end? Hyperpreterism claims God has declared the earth will literally last forever. They tend to misread biblical verses speaking of "forever." That word oftentimes means "a long time," and not literally "forever."

The Hebrew word "olam" can mean forever, but it also is used in limited duration contexts: Israel received her land "forever" (Gen. 13:15; Deut. 4:40). The Passover is "forever" (Exo. 12:14, 17, 24). The Aaronic priesthood is "forever" (Exo. 29:28). Even slaves are bound to their masters "forever" (Exo. 21:6).

This huge mistake on the part of the Hyperpreterists shows their naive understanding of Scripture. This book mentions that many of their main writers have not graduated from formal theological seminaries and have not studied biblical languages. This explains their carelessness; it should not justify their heresy!

This was a marvelous book that confronts head-on the new and developing cult-like movement of hyperpreterism. As you can see from some of the negative reviews below, this is a movement lacking intellectual capacity and Christian graciousness. This book lets you know WHY that is so.

The only problem I have with the book is that two of its writers are preteristic themselves: Gentry and Mathison. Although they are opposed to HYPERpreterism, they are still preterists. So, ironically, I agree with the negative reviewers that these two authors and not to be fully accepted. Yet the other writers are opposed to all forms of preterism, evne the orthodox, evangelical preterism of Gentry and Mathison.

Yet even in their chapters we find excellent material against the movement. You can read other reviews below to get a summary of the argument of the book. This is a must read.

I am alarmed at the new and growing theological movement known as Hyperpreterism, which Keith Mathison's expose examines. I am mostly alarmed that here is another example of superficial Christians going off the deep-end.

Dr. Mathison and his assembly of Reformed scholars provide a fine critique of this strange new movement (cult?). Several other reviews have shown the strange doctrines being promoted in this movement; I will not repeat those.

I will just say: If you are a concerned, evangelical Christian, you NEED to get this book. Just read the negative reviews posted on Amazon.com and try to imagine a movement with such people promoting it getting into your church!

If you love historic Christianity, you won't like this new movement. If you want to keep up on such deviant theologies, you will need this book. It is very well written by a number of reputable Reformed scholars.