Full Preterism:
A House on Fire

Brian Simmons

When did this conflagration start? It began in 2006, when Todd Dennis, curator of PreteristArchive.com, announced his rejection of the Hyper-Preterist position.

Within just two years, I have witnessed a spectacle truly amazing. A theology which was formerly one of the great wonders of the internet world has caught fire, and is now burning to cinders. I am speaking of Hyper-Preterism, of course – the belief that the second advent, resurrection, and final judgment occurred in A.D. 70. All those who have access to the facts will bear me witness, that wherever one looks, the doctrines espoused by Hyper-Preterists are going “up in smoke.”

When did this conflagration start? It began in 2006, when Todd Dennis, curator of PreteristArchive.com, announced his rejection of the Hyper-Preterist position. Almost immediately the solidarity of the movement showed signs of weakening. A furious wave of attack was launched against Todd and others who began defecting from the Hyper-Preterist scene.

Previous to this time, Hyper-Preterism was a flourishing movement. It is no overstatement to say that the growth of Hyper-Preterism among former evangelicals indirectly triggered the publication of such epoch-marking books as “The End Times Controversy” (edited by Tim Lahayeand Thomas Ice).

Shortly after Todd left Hyper-Preterism, a blog named Preterist Heresy came along, the purpose of which was to archive quotes fromHyper-Preterist leaders, and showcase the hypocrisy and inconsistency within the movement. Despite its downplay by many, this blog made a major dent in the Hyper-Preterist community, severely compromising its leaders and causing them to be more careful about statements made on public forums.

In 2008, Preterist Blog, another major site, was launched by Dee Dee Warren and Roderick Edwards. This site has been prominent in pointing out the errors of Hyper-Preterist theology, as well as the behavioral trends evinced by leaders of the “conservative” faction. The efforts of Dee Dee and Roderick may be directly responsible for the recent “locking down” of one of the most vocal trumpets of the Hyper-Preterist movement.

To show how far the Hyper-Preterist movement has deteriorated since 2006, one only need see how far the conservative voices have compromised their doctrinal standards, or lapsed into silence. As the more liberal adherents speak up, the conservatives are driven into their private corners, where their voices are hardly even heard.

Kurt Simmons, one of the conservative proponents of Hyper-Preterism, learned this the hard way. In 2007 his “Eschatology Conference” seemed like it would become the next great beacon of the Hyper-Preterist community. In 2008 the same conference was seen overrun by liberals and “Covenant Creation” folks. In 2009… well, there WAS no 2009, for Simmons never repeated the experiment!

Over the past couple years, the conservatives have found themselves up against an increasing wall of liberalism.  Unless these conservatives change their party-lines, or develop horns and hooves, they risk falling into extinction — a necessary corollary of the evolutionary principle.

Really, who ever hears of people like Ed Stevens and Walt Hibbard anymore? The fact is, they who were on the bottom floor of the penthouse have already been consumed in the flames of progressive Preterism. Their tale is a venerable one (to them), but one whose final chapter was written long ago. With this in mind, who would dare say that Hyper-Preterism (at least as it was known for so many years) has any kind of future?

Regardless of the grim statistics, however, a new legion of Hyper-Preterist heroes has come along in recent months in an attempt to rejuvenate the lifeblood of the moribund community.

 Bryan Lewis, a rabid proponent of Hyper-Pret theology, recently started a “church” (with Hermie Watford and “Dennis from TN“) saying that the “time is ripe for Christianity to embrace the truths of covenant eschatology.”  Last time we checked he was doing radio programs.

Kelly Nelson Birks, an old speaker who wangs his academic credentials around to make the H.P. heresy seem more respectable, has been on the radio promoting Hyper-Preterism as well.  He is also responsible for organizing the recent ”Omaha Preterist Conference,” at which a disturbed individual stood up and publicly cursed the movement.

Dave Green, leader of the quasi-conservative Hyper-Calvinist faction, now poses as ringleader of a group which purports to have a written “answer” to Keith Mathison’s book, “When Shall These Things Be?“

But Larry Siegle, a once popular speaker at Hyper-Preterist conferences, has grown increasingly reticent, and was recently reported to have been studying the “End Times Controversy,” edited by Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice. This encouraging move may be a surface indication that Hyper-Preterist theology is being recognized as potentially erroneous.

However one chooses to look at the facts, the prevailing trends speak clearly. No matter where one looks, the conflagration is rising higher, and there is no end in sight.  Hyper-Preterism is being consumed “in toto.” As the battle for theological supremacy among its members becomes more and more conspicuous, we can only hope that those seeking refuge on the rooftop will realize that their hopes are futile, and jump to the safety offered them below.



  Roderick wrote @

Good work Brian, we need to keep chronicling the hyper-preterist movement so people can see how a person can go from being a Christian to being a heretic. I too hope more people leave the movement.

  Tim Martin wrote @


You wrote:

“Really, who ever hears of people like Ed Stevens and Walt Hibbard anymore?”

Can I point out something that is already posted in public?

Walt Hibbard offered this glowing recommendation for Beyond Creation Science, the first book to outline and develop the Covenant Creation view:

“I expect this book will become a standard work in creation and prophetic studies for many years to come. Highly recommended!”

-Walt Hibbard,
Founder & Former Chairman, Great Christian Books, Inc,
Original Signer, 9.5 Theses of the Next Reformation

BTW, that endorsement is listed on the back cover of Beyond Creation Science. Perhaps you were unaware of this?

Contrary to your claims, the Covenant Creation view is the conservative view of Genesis creation that complements Covenant Eschatology. Your article betrays your ignorance.

Have you actually read Beyond Creation Science?

Tim Martin

  Brian Simmons wrote @

Thanks, Roderick. It’s definitely worthwhile chronicling this ever-changing movement… if only to show people how incredibly cultic it is becoming.


  Brian Simmons wrote @


No, I didn’t hear about that. But it only illustrates my point. One of the former major players of the movement now has to write jacket blurbs to get any attention. I’m not making fun of anyone. I’m merely pointing out how liberal the movement has become — so much so, that conservatives have been pushed into the shadows.

And , no, I have never read BCS. Frankly, I don’t intend to, as I don’t believe in Hyper-Preterism.


  Dorothy wrote @

Hi Brian,

Great article and I agree.

While I haven’t read Beyond Creation Science in it’s new version, I read the one that was first proposed and it was actually one of the main reasons I left the movement.

It also helped to bring division among some of the more conservative leaders. It was and still is highly effective there.

The camp has divided and divided and divided. Just before SGP shut their doors to the public they were scrapping with the pentecostal branch of the movement so I do see another division on the horizon.

When I first came to the HP view, I was quite impressed that so many different denominations would be attracted to it. I saw a belief where unity might actually become reality as we worked toward that goal. Instead, the only unity was in eschatology and it failed in all the other areas.

Then I watched as people separated into annhilationism, BCS, soul sleep, universalism and the list goes on.

So, I quite agree, it’s dying a slow death. It is nothing like it was 6-7 years ago. It’s on a slow steady downhill decline and yes, Todd played a great role in making that happen.

Thank you Todd – and all the others that speak out against it. The tide is turning.

  Roderick wrote @

Brian I DID READ the 2nd edition of BCS & a did a complete chapter-by-chapter review of which neither Tim & Jeff interacted. So, when Tim acts like a person must read his latest revised edition before they can comment, remember that it has been over 3 years since I wrote the review & yet dead silence from Tim & Jeff — not so much as even a mention on BCS website’s ‘critical review’ page. Yeah, Brian these guys aren’t honest.

Lastly, the “Covenantal Creation” view, while being the “logical” addition to hyperpreterism overall convoluted premises & conclusions — BCS IS LIBERAL. They are using the most liberal faction of hyperpreterism to promote the book.

  Brian Simmons wrote @

Hi Dorothy,

Yes, it seems divisions ARE becoming more frequent among H.P.’s. I think that it’s extremely difficult to systematize Hyper-Preterist theology. Because it relies almost exclusively on “a priori” logic, conclusions will differ radically among its adherents. Apart from their belief that all predictive prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70, there is very little agreement amongst them on some major areas of the faith. The “tongues” debate only exemplifies this. Simply put, it is impossible for H.P. to attain to any kind of objectivity.


  Brian Simmons wrote @

Hi Rod,

Thanks for the link. Incidentally, Jeff Vaughn swears up and down that he and Martin are “conservative.” As always, a change of definitions is needed in all directions, before one can even take H.P.’s seriously.


  Kurt Fiech wrote @

What strikes me is the tenor of the article that implies that because the movement has broken down into “divisions” it is proof positive of error. If that be valid, then Protestantism, itself, is the most grievous of errors as it is the KING of divisions. I think where those like Roderick went awry in their turning against preterism was the focus on personalities rather than Scriptural discrepancies. Once they determined that they didn’t like most of the leaders, they moved into supporting their dislike by linking with Preterist haters. Just as bad as the liberal preterists in my book

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *