Hyper Preterism – Introduction to the Study

When is preterism taken too far?  Is it possible to take fulfillment beyond the point of Scriptural warrant?  At what point has the declaration of past fulfillment overstepped biblical bounds?  Naturally, it depends on who you ask.  For instance, strict Futurists would say that making AD70 the fulfillment of any of the Olivet Discourse (as opposed to those events serving as a type of their future tribulation) would be taking fulfillment too far.

Historical preterists would say that declaring the parousia, great white throne judgment, and general resurrection to be strictly in the past crosses the line into hyper preterism — and wouldn’t the entirety of (non full-pret) Christianity throughout all ages agree at least that far?  Many, in fact, would go much farther, declaring that anyone who taught that the coming, judgment and resurrection of the dead were past events are outside of the Christian faith altogether.  

However, what makes the discussion more interesting is that even full preterists believe that there is some point where fulfillment has been taken too far.     A virtually unanimous example of this would include the declarations by certain full preterists that the gospel was only for the pre-AD70 era.  (Less consensus is found on the issues of the cessation of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.)   First, then, there is no legitimate grounds for denying that there is such a thing as hyper preterism.   Denying that such a line exists is purely the politics of hyperpreterism. Secondary is the issue of whether or not hyper preterism is worthy to be held in contempt.  Another consideration is this:  If such large segments of preterists are actually hyper preterists, then what is true preterism?

This page will explore these concerns by posting all definitions of hyper preterism found online or in books.   Various possibilities will be offered for the definition and identification of “hyper preterism,” using full preterist assertions as the grounds for investigation.    Full preterists are encouraged to participate by either posting assent or dissent regarding whether these assertions should qualify as hyper preterism… and whether that is grounds for separation.    Lack of dissent, or the belittling of the investigation, would seem to imply consent.    If anyone now disclaims comments posted here that they have made in the past, I will gladly make note of that shift away from hyper preterism in the appropriate place.

There are all kinds of “lines in the sand” drawn in an attempt to define hyper preterism.  Listed below are as many as could be found.   If you have one, or have found one not listed, please share.  


  1. Because Full Preterism is absolutely not historical Christianity.  There is no fellowship between the two now, nor has their been historically.

  2. Because few really believe that every wind of preterist doctrine is just “another legitimate alternative.”

  3. Because denying hyper preterism exists (or belittling its investigation) encourages the accumulation of error.

  4. Because denying hyper preterism exists (or belittling its investigation) discourages Futurists, etc., from studying preterism.

  5. Because denying (or tolerating those who deny) the necessity for faith, hope and expectation (and the work of the Holy Spirit) in the Christian life today, just might be working an overthrow of people’s faith and/or of Christianity.

  6. Because if it isn’t true that AD30 was insufficient, and that so much ceased in AD70, then a horrible error is being spread.

  7. Because if eschatology and salvation are so closely linked, grievous errors in one would result in grievous errors in the other.

  8. Because a growing number of reasonable former full preterists are saying that the system is fundamentally flawed.

Thomas Rattray, 1878 – “Having previously, by an inductive method, drawn from Scripture an Eschatology which placed its subjects at the end of the Mosaic age, and not as generally understood at the end of time; I was led, in this series of discourses, to present the evidences for a conclusion, so different from what has been, and is now, held in Christendom.”

William S. Urmy, 1900 – “The system of eschatology which this work presents requires that certain changes be made not only in the current thought of the day concerning the second coming of Christ, but in creeds, articles of faith, rituals, and hymns, where they refer to this and kindred eschatological subjects.” (Many Examples Found in Regressive Preterism Study Archive)

Hyper Preterism Denied by Hyper Preterists

This list is in the process of containing every known comment by a full preterist on the subject of hyper preterism (or equivalent terms).   Those HyPs who offer a definition (or characteristics) of hyper preterism will be given a star.  Those that deny there to be such a  thing – or belittle the investigation – will be given a whammy.  Hopefully, it can be agreed by everyone else that denying the existence of hyper preterism is worthy of correction.   To dismiss the term simply because one does not like the connotation is an elephant in the living room of full preterism, and the sense of denial inherent in this course is indicative of the overall problem with full preterism’s theological irresponsibility :  “Full Preterism is also known by several other names: Consistent Preterism, Covenant Eschatology, Hyper-Preterism (a term used by some opponents of the Full Preterist position and considered to be derogatory by Full Preterists)..” (Wikipedia Entry for “Preterism”)

Dan Harden

“It has become in fashion to add the prefix “hyper” to a view that one feels goes in an acceptable direction but goes too far. It is largely illusion. You are right, there is no such thing as “Hyper-Calvinism”, and while I think there might be a case for overextending the basics of Preterism, I think it is rather hard to pinpoint. Anybody who sees some passages as Preterist but reject other passages as having relevant time indicators tends to resort to the over-used prefix “hyper”.  (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)

Walt Hibbard
“When I saw that Ken framed his paper around such emotionally-charged words as “hyper-preterism,” “heterodox,” “failure,” “errors,” etc., I was disappointed. Such language has the effect of discouraging bright young students of the Scriptures from pursuing advanced eschatological studies which may take them beyond the generally accepted creedal formulations.” (A Response to Ken Gentry)

Mike Sullivan

“Gentry, Mathison, and North use the “Hyper-Preterist” slur, because they too are very close to crossing the creedal line of their denominations.  They also know we make them look really bad to the objective reader because we expose the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of their hermeneutics.  So they use “spoofing” and scare tactics and duck debates etc.”   (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)



Hyper Preterism Defined by Hyper Preterists

hyper-preterism” defined
 and self applied by Full Preterist Book:

“It may surprise students of Biblical theology: When we combine the eschatological teachings of the great theologians of the Reformed church throughout the centuries, we arrive at “hyper-preterism”:

(A House Divided Back Book Cover)

 Jason Bradfield  (Now a former full preterist)

  • 2009: “If the debate here is whether or not John Noyes was a hyper-preterist, then obviously our first and most important task is to define what is meant by hyper-preterist. We certainly can’t answer our question if we don’t know what we are looking for.  So what is hyper-preterism according to Mathison? Mathison tells us:

While differing among themselves on numerous details, proponents of this doctrine are united in teaching the most basic thesis of hyper-preterism, namely that the Second Coming of Christ and the events associated with it (e.g. the general resurrection and the final judgment) occurred during the first century

The next obvious step is to then examine the writings of Noyes and find out if he taught the above, namely, that the Second Coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment occurred during the first century. With that clear definition before us, let us now examine quotes that Mathison provided and ask if it fits that definition” (The Oneida Community and Hyper Preterism )

 Ward Fenley

  • Full vs Hyperpreterism and Abiding Faith (2009) “Hyperpreterism is the belief that no one after AD 70 will have eternal life and that no soteriological benefit (i.e. salvific benefit) extends beyond AD 70. They (hyperpreterists) may believe that those particular events happened, but because they do not believe they apply past AD 70, they, by sheer virtue of their own confession, do not believe in the need for forgiveness of sin. After all, if you don’t believe Christ died for you since you were born after AD 70, then you do not believe the Gospel as it is clearly portrayed in the Scriptures”

  • “Hyper-Preterism is the belief that all soteriological events were consummated and ended by AD70 and that none of the soteriological benefits of Christ’s redemptive work apply post AD70. “

 Sam Frost (Now a former full preterist)

  • 10/6/10: “Voila! See, I told you so. IT’S ALL BEEN FULFILLED….there is no “ongoing” anything…..which makes me wonder…..what is the AGE TO COME if not POST A.D. 70? See, they have EVERYTHING relating to the PROMISES to Israel DONE by A.D. 70…..there is no spilling over…..there is no enlargement…..as Mike Sullivan said, the mustard seed parable was FULFILLED……it’s not GROWING anymore…… Now, sure, they will say, people still come into the city of the New Jerusalem and christianity spreads and has spread for the last 2,000 years, BUT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHIGN THE BIBLE PROMISED, PROPHESIED, or PREDICTED according to what I now call: Hyper Preterism. See, any “impact” on the West, or Civilization (as Rich brought up) is just a “side benefit.” It’s a sort of “extra”…..an unexpected windfall……the Spread of Christianity in the last 2000 years is, in their view, in no wise connected with any prophecy in the Bible, for if it were, then AT THAT POINT, we are beyond A.D. 70 and prophecy is “still being” fulfilled in an ongoing sense, and these hyper-preterists CANNOT HAVE THIS. I don’t know why…..because they get really angry when you bring it up.”

  • “This must mean that issues of “sin”, “death” and “law”, which some preterists have written off, are “not for today” (along with the Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel).  Here, it appears, Dennis is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries have always called hyper-preterism.  This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord’s Table, or church officers.” (from “the reign of christ” website, page now removed)

  • 2009“Um especially – and I don’t mean to bring this up and I don’t want to discuss it but the Beyond Creation Science stuff – um definitely goes further than – see I would call – in fact I have an article where I do refer to that and then the universalizing tendency, I refer to that as hyper – I call that hyperpreterism. I think a couple of years ago I started saying this stuff is going so far out into – I don’t know where anymore” (August 2009 podcast mp3)
    I believe that in this latest exchange, the clear, clear lines have been drawn between what I know consider as simply a new reinvention of Christianity that seeks to operate completely and entirely outside the scope and circle of anything that could be considered historic Christianity.”   http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A5076&page=3#c_45c

  • 8/17/2009: “One thing I do know is Reformed theology, and I have tried to square them. But, from Calvin to Berkhof, from Clark to Reymond, it can’t be done. So, when you say, you are coming from a Reformed perspective and that it disagrees with FP, SURE IT DOES! And? The problem is that a Reformed soteriology (especially the doctrine of the intermediate state, and what happens to the Chrsitian soul after death) is abysmal. The Framework of Fulfilled Eschatology informs me of the framework of soteriology. You can’t have our cake and eat it, too. That’s why I would become Roman Catholic and Premillennial (adopting Justin, Irenaeus and a host of others).”

 Dan Harden

  • “I think there might be a case for overextending the basics of Preterism”

 Bryan Lewis

  • 2010: “I am among those Preterist who realize that (HyP) Preterism is absolutely not Orthodox Christianity. It is my opinion, there is no fellowship between the two now, nor has their ever been historically.” (Am I a Christian?)

 Chris Livingston

  • “As you may have noticed, in the forum on ZECH 14, I’m dialoging with a guy called RiversofEden who calls himself a Preterist, and he thinks Christianity was always and only for genetic Jews, but that it also went extinct at 70 AD.  So, I think that an over-significance can be made of 70 AD. Judgment of Jerusalem. Yes.  Fulfillment of all prophecy concerning the long-awaited beginning of Christ’s Kingdom, the Coming of the Son of Man, and Judean Judgment?  Yes.  Extinction of the New Covenant and the Church in its infancy?  No.  Obsolescence of the Sermon on the Mount?  No. Cessation of the activity of the person, who is quoted in the Book of Acts, known as the Holy Spirit?  Only to the degree that believers refuse to separate from iniquity and statist idolatry.” (“The Over-Significance of AD70” -http://planetpreterist.com/news-5441.html#38214)

 Richard McPherson

 John Humphrey Noyes

  • “I first advanced into actual heresy in the early part of the summer of 1833 while still a student at New Haven Seminary. In the course of my Bible studies my attention was arrested by Christ’s expression in John 21:22: “If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, what is that to thee.” This seemed to imply that Jesus expected his disciple John to live until his second coming, and the disciples so construed it. The church on the contrary taught that Christ’s second coming was still far in the future. I had long been in the belief that the Bible was not a book of inexplicable riddles, and I determined to solve this mystery. Accordingly, I read the New Testament ten times with an eye on the question as to the time of Christ’s second coming, and my heart struggling in prayer for full access to the truth.” (George Wallingford Noyes, ed. The Religious Experience of John Humphrey Noyes (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1923), 69. )

 Larry Siegle

  • “Some preterists have taken the view to an extreme insisting that almost everything ended in A.D. 70 without coming to a better understanding of what began in A.D. 70. The “New Heavens and a New Earth” represents the full and complete fulfillment of the “old” and the bringing in of all the good things that God has promised would characterize the “new.” (cite: http://preterist.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/preterist-spirituality-is-preterist-idealism-the-answer/)

  • “I believe that Preterism is the essence of what the revealed nature of God’s “eternal purpose” was meant to convey and that the local expressions of Preterism (churches) will represent that essence in every aspect. While such a statement may sound a bit “cultish” the reality is that there is only one “truth” and that conflicting theological views may continue to remain within the boundaries of established “orthodoxy” none will represent the fullness and completeness of God’s redemptive plan as does Preterism.”

  • “Futurism is not okay. Churches that teach and practice doctrine that affirms futurism are not okay. Why? Because what they believe, teach and practice leads down a dark pathway of constant waiting and disappointment. It renders these churches powerless to be the expression of Christianity that God intended. It is a lie and one that rejects the Bible and therefore false. Something false to the core ought to be uprooted and cast into the fire.” // “I will settle for nothing less than total victory”

  • “It is only a matter of time before believers who are convinced of the truth  (of “AD70 Dispensationalism” TD) will realize that an Internet-based “movement” is not sufficient to have a balanced theology apart from the tangible practical outgrowth in the form of a church. Nobody wants to start another denomination. However, it is impossible to accomplish certain tasks such as ordination, education, and practical ministry without an organizational framework. Within the next decade we will begin to see more people moving in this direction. History teaches that a “movement” evolves into something else eventually.” (I encourage Larry and other HyPs to abandon the “denomination” idea, for everybody’s good.    The “Resurrection Past” doctrine is not merely a “conflicting theological view” of established Christianity.. but, rather, it is a complete overthrow thereof.  The two cannot occupy the same space, obviously, and there will never be close fellowship between the Christian Church and such a theological enemy.  TD) (http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/forum/topics/shooting-the-breeze-in-sams?commentId=2362512:Comment:19258&xg_source=activity)

  • 2009: “I do believe that some statement must be made to provide a sense of balance to the recent departure from (full) Preterism of some, back from whence they came. These actions are neither new, nor are they surprising as often is the case when the strongholds of “tradition” are neither broken, nor forsaken. .   The greatest error of Preterism is in our reluctance to “kill the beast” of allegiance in the hearts and minds of the people to their vain “traditions” and obsessions with conformity to the doctrines and practices of those who created the corpses of denominations that are dying all around us today… When I heard of the recent departure of some within the community my honest reaction was a deep sense of sadness in the very depth of my being.” (Don’t forget that a good percentage of former full preterists did not “go back” at all, but went forward by synthesizing a preterist approach to both historical futurism and idealism.  Whether you think it is consistent with scripture or not, it is still a step FORWARD in the theological discussion to leave full preterism for a hybrid not previously held.)

 Ed Stevens 

  • “These folks would see the church as a temporary transitional phase of the Kingdom, with its phase-out in AD 70. These folks would also see baptism, the Lord’s Supper and other such physical expressions of our ongoing covenant relationship with God as being no longer valid in the post-70 Kingdom. This is certainly an extreme “hyper” preterist position, and very few have taken that route. ”

 Mike Sullivan

  • The “literal rapture view” & “no application of eternal life post AD 70 because “eternal life” was a new covenant blessing made to the 12 tribes of Israel and therefore can ONLY apply to them.  (Reformed Preterist Yahoo Group) | “Now, there are REAL “Hyper-Preterists” and they believe there is no salvation for anyone post AD 70 – and they as well are a minority (I have only met one in 17 years).  They follow the kind of thinking of Lloyd Dale that “gentiles” are the 10 northern tribes.  So after God “gathered” “all Israel,” there is no salvation post AD 70 for real gentiles.” (PretCosmos Yahoo Group)

 “Preterist Alliance”

  • Hyper Preterism (AKA – Pantelism, Preterist UniversalismPreterist Universal Annihilationism) – The view that all things were accomplished in relation to 70AD where all or most statements of “salvation” or “eternity” relate to the quality of life for the believer, or escape from the physical/temporal judgment of 70AD.  Some of the variants of this view claim that after 70AD either all people are free from sin, including evildoers, thus sending everyone to heaven, or that there is no afterlife spoken of in the Bible, thereby causing all Biblical references to “eternity” or “salvation” to be nothing more than temporal references to life while on this planet, and future generations of living people and their quality of life.  In this view, either all people go to heaven or all people go to a non-existent state at death. http://preteristalliance.org/preterism/hyper-preterism/

Proponents of this view teach a variety of variations of Full or Partial Preterism which the majority of Preterists reject or consider abberant.  Some of the views espoused within this framework include the following:

1.  That all things were accomplished in relation to AD70 and that the Bible contains no actual modern day application, other than general insights or historical reflection.

2.  That all or most statements of “salvation” or “eternity” in the Bible relate to the quality of life for the believer, or escape from the physical/temporal judgment of AD70, and do not deal with the afterlife in any way.

3.  That after AD70 people are universally free from sin, including evildoers, thus sending everyone to heaven.”

4.  That there is no afterlife spoken of in the Bible, thereby causing all Biblical references to “eternity” or “salvation” to be nothing more than temporal references to life while on this planet, and future generations of living people and their quality of life (called “generational salvation”).

5.  That all consciousness ceases at physical death for all people, whether they are in Christ, or not.

6.  There is no continuation of “charismatic gifts” of any kind after AD70, nor is there any indewlling of the Holy Spirit.

  • “We today don’t receive the gift of the Holy Spirit because we have the very presence of God. So in fact to be baptized was for that age.” (A. Keyes, Fb 4/4/11)

7.  That the Bible is primarily a teaching tool only, good during the individual life of a believer, and for future generations of living people, and may help society as a whole in practical and tangible ways to mature and advance throughout history.

Hyper Preterist Views, Defined by other Hyper Preterists:  Universalism (Don Preston, Preterist Alliance); Pantelism (Preterist Alliance); Comprehensive Annihilationism  (Preterist Alliance); Max King’s Doctrine (i.e. CBV – “Corporate Body View” – Simmons); Covenant Creation (SGP); Consistent Cessationism (Fenley, Preston, Stevens); Jesus sent only to Israel (Fenley, Preterist Alliance); Literal Rapture View (Sullivan)

Hyper Preterism Defined by Orthodox Preterists

 Jay Adams

  • 2003: “Frost goes on to write, “If the Second Coming really did occur in A.D.70, does this damage the integrity of the church, he history and her claim to know the truth?”  The (Orthodox Preterist) answer?  Absolutely.   The vast majority of biblical exegetes have clearly taught the doctrines that (Unorthodox Preterists) reject.  If UPs are correct, it would mean that the Bible-believing church would have been deluded or deceived for most of its history, and Christians would have truly entertained a “misplaced hope.” (Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox, pp. 2,3)

  • “Because UPs are right in many of their interpretations, and because in these they have good exegesis on their side, they have become cocky about the interpretation of other passages in which they show shoddy and forced exegesis to support untenable teachings.” (Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox, p. 4)

 Samuel Dawson

  • “Preterists continue to make 70AD the transition line when OLD THINGS END, and NEW THINGS BEGIN. Since the OLD THINGS END (Old Covenant, Old Heavens and Earth, Old Age) pass in 70AD, ALL are then placed in the NEW THINGS (New Covenant, New Heavens and Earth, New Age). And it is interesting how these people don’t see this as HIGHLY Universalistic, especially since in the New Heavens and Earth, the ONLY thing pictured is the New Jerusalem in which the tree of life resides. So if we are ALL now in the New Heavens and Earth, (whereby there is no darkness, only light), how is it there is not seperation from those who are not of God? Preterism results in ALL being found WORTHY to obtain the “age to come”. They teach ALL are in the New Heavens and Earth where by “only righteousness dwells.” 2 Pet 3:13.”

 Kenneth Gentry

  • “(“Hyper” Preterism)…goes too far by extending valid observations gathered from temporally confined judgment passages (texts including such delimitations as ‘soon’ and ‘at hand’) to passages that are not temporally constrained and that actually prophesy the future advent of Christ.” (Tabletalk magazine, January 1999, p.56)

  • “Before I begin my analysis and critique, however, I must make very clear my orthodox convictions regarding biblical eschatology. I pause to do so because a new, unorthodox movement has arisen that confuses many Christians regarding orthodox preterism. This new movement largely arises from within Church of Christ (Campbellite) circles; indeed, the two main publishing sources of the movement are run by present or former Campbellites (though, like any good cult-like movement, it is widening its net and drawing followers from other sources). This movement asserts that A.D. 70 witnesses the fulfilling of ALL eschatological prophecy. This mutant form of preterism goes too far, for it denies a future Second Advent of Christ; a future, bodily resurrection of the dead; and other historic, orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith.” (An Introductory Disclaimer)

  • “Unfortunately, a new gnosticism is infecting the church: hyper-preterism. One major feature of hyper-preterism is its denial of a future physical resurrection of the believer at the end of history. As we shall see, this contradicts a major result of the resurrection of Christ. Before I demonstrate this, I must briefly summarize the argument for Christ’s physical resurrection, which is the effective cause of our own future resurrection. ” (Christ’s Resurrection and ours)

  • “First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A. D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A. D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A. D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?” (Brief Theologial Analysis of Hyper-Preterism)

 Scott Hahn

  • 2003: “I was originally attracted by Max King and J. S. Russell, but subsequently rejected their view that 70 AD exhaustively fulfills NT prophecy. Personally, I have come to conclude that the main error of “hyper-preterism” is based on the common failure to recognize the theological significance of the biblical (and ancient Jewish) view of Israel’s temple as a “microcosm” (i.e., the cosmos in miniature), which implies that the cosmos itself was seen as a “macro-temple” (see Ps 104, Job 38).  Accordingly, the divinely decreed destruction of the Jerusalem (microcosmic) temple was itself a typological event, one that foreshadows the future destruction of the cosmos (i.e., as macro-temple). The destruction of the Jerusalem temple is thus a true — but partial — fulfillment, which implies a partial non-fulfillment, thus pointing to a still greater fulfillment in the future, when the cosmos undergoes the same divinely decreed destruction as the Jerusalem temple. An integral interpretation of NT prophetic texts is rooted in the scriptural view of creation, set forth in terms of temple typology (see Hebrews 9:1-12). What happens to the temple must eventually happen to the cosmos; the resurrected body of Christ is the New Temple, which will be fully manifested in glory only when the old cosmos undergoes the same transformative judgement of God, thus bringing forth a New Creation — which the Apocalypse rightly describes as the Divine Temple (Rev. 11:18ff) of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:22).” (comments, ca-anathema, 2003)

 Keith Mathison

  • 2009 : “While differing among themselves on numerous details, proponents of this doctrine are united in teaching the most basic thesis of hyper-preterism, namely that the Second Coming of Christ and the events associated with it (e.g. the general resurrection and the final judgment) occurred during the first century”

 Gary North

  • “I recommend the immediate public recantation and personal repentance of Russell’s theology (Full Preterism). Barring this, I recommend the heretic’s excommunication by his church’s judicial body.  The elders should allow the accused member to identify the heresy for which he is then excommunicated.” (David Chilton, R.I.P.)

  • “I would suggest that we not encourage (David Chilton’s) heresy by interacting with him on this matter on this or any other forum.  It is now a matter of Church discipline, assuming that he is under any.” (North on Chilton)

  • “We can and should pray for the restoration of his mind, but to debate with him publicly will almost certainly drive him deeper into this heresy. He will feel compelled to defend himself in public. Let him go in peace. It is not our God-given task to confront him at this point. That is for his local church to do.”  (North on Chilton)

  • “Church officers who learn of any member’s commitment to the doctrine of “full preterism” have an obligation to help this member clarify his or her thinking, and either become fully consistent with the full-preterist position or else fully abandon it. The member should be brought before the church’s session or other disciplinary body and asked the following six questions in writing:”

  • “the member must also be asked to sign an affirmation of Chapter XXXIII of the Westminster Confession of Faith and answer 90 of the Larger Catechism. This signed statement constitutes a formal rejection of the “full preterist” position. The member must be told in advance that this signed statement can be shown to others at the discretion of the session. If the member refuses to sign such a statement under these conditions, the elders should continue the disciplinary process.”

  • “There are only three lawful ways out of a local congregation: by death, by letter of transfer, and by excommunication. Presbyterian laymen who have been brought before the church’s session because they are suspected of holding heretical preterism, and who persist in their commitment to heretical preterism by refusing to sign a statement that is consistent with the Westminster standards, must be removed from membership in the local congregation by excommunication.” (“Full Preterism” : Manichean or Perfectionist-Pelagian?)

Kim Riddlebarger “full preterists teach that the resurrection—which, they say, is not bodily but spiritual—has already occurred. To teach, as full preterists do, that Christ has already returned and that the resurrection occurred in A.D. 70 at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem is heresy, according to the apostle Paul.” (A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding The End Times, 239)

Hyper Preterism Defined by Futurists

Quarterly Journal of Prophecy (1856) “The author maintains that the key to the Apocalypse is, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the second coming of Christ, and that there is no other advent of Christ to be expected (Lecture xvi.) He is an ultra-preterist. Those who believe in a literal coming of the Lord to judgment, yet to take place, he condemns in language sufficiently strong. Any system (millenarian or not) that takes for granted a future advent of Christ, is founded on ” strained interpretations”— “patchings of the Word of God”—” positions plainly untenable.” Whereas, his own doctrine (that there is no advent) is written as with a sunbeam, and the whole body of the Scriptures coincides with it (p. 431). ” (vol. 22, p. 98)

 Tommy Ice

  • (1999) “EXTREME preterists, or consistent preterists, as they prefer to be known as, hold that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. If there is a future second coming, they say, the Bible does not talk about it. Extreme preterists believe that there is no future bodily resurrection, which place them outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy.” (Has Bible Prophecy Been Fulfilled?)

 Tim LaHaye

  • “those who teach Christ came physically in A.D. 70 are borderline heretics” (End Times Controversy, p. 10)

 Robert Mounce

  • “The major problem with the preterist position is that the decisive victory portrayed in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse was never achieved. It is difficult to believe that John envisioned anything less than the complete overthrow of Satan, the final destruction of evil, and the eternal reign of God. If this is not to be, then either the Seer was essentially wrong in the major thrust of his message or his work was so hopelessly ambiguous that its first recipients were all led astray”  (The Book of Revelation, 1977, 27)

 Joe Price

  • 1989: “It is not a harmless, private conviction which can be held without hurting oneself and others, but a pernicious theory of error which engulfs the soul of men in destructive heresy!” (Joe Price, “The Second Coming of Christ: Did it Already Occur’! (3),” Guardian of Truth. November 2, 1989, p. 650).

 David B. Updegraff

  • (1892)  “THE effort to make people believe that the promised parousia [coming] of our Lord took place at the “destruction of Jerusalem” tends to mislead souls, blot out the Christian’s hope, and destroy the value of Scripture as a definite testimony to anything.”  (Old Corn: Or, Sermons and Addresses on the Spiritual Lifep. 278)

 Jim West

  • We must not let them get away with calling themselves “preterists” or “consistent preterists,” or believers in “fulfilled eschatology.” The word “preterist” is a good word. The disciples of Hymenæus are not preterists; their “dispensable eschatology” makes them heretics. ” (The Allurement of Hymenæan Preterism: The Rise of Dispensable Eschatology)

 Douglas Wilson

  • “When some people find a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. In the world of hyper-preterism, we find that everything is devoted to tying everything else into A.D. 70 somehow.” (WSTTB, p.255 )

 Hubbard Eastman

“Theses of the Second Reformation.”
John Humphrey Noyes From From Aug. 20, 1837

“26. We believe, that Christ plainly and repeatedly promised to his disciples, that he would come to them a second time and complete their salvation within the life-time of some of his immediate followers.
27. We believe, that the primitive church, living in the transition period, from the first to the second coming of Christ, were more or less partakers of the resurrection, holiness, liberty, and glory of Christ according to their faith.
28. We believe, that at the destruction of Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish dispensation, Christ came to believers the second time, according to his promise.
29. We believe, that at the period of the second coming of Christ, christianity, or the kingdom of heaven, properly began

SAM FROST FINDING AGREEMENT AMONG FULL PRETERIST GROUPS THAT REFUTES THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING THAT “ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70” // CREATES NATURAL DEFINITION FOR “HYPER-PRETERISM” – “ALL BIBLE PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED IN AD70” Sam Frost: BCS, Ch. 21 Pt. 1 (11/5/10) “The “buzz” going around on the other Preterist websites is that they, too, see “ongoing fulfillment.” If this is the case, then Full Preterism needs to drop the moniker that “we believe ALL prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.” They weren’t. The prophecies concerning the “age to come” are being fulfilled today.


What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here

Date: 29 Nov 2009
Time: 15:24:47

Your Comments:

If, as HP teaches,that all was compleated concerning the Old Covenant,(and I believe from my own studies,that this could be so)than I would like to hear from them about this New Heaven and Earth,and in what way this effects us today.

Date: 26 Aug 2010
Time: 08:27:24

Your Comments:

After reading all this stuff -I never heard of this preterism business- I have this to say: If one is looking for “orthodox” or “historic” Christianity he needs to abandon his commentaries and “confessions”, and then undertake a rigorous study (more likely a lifetime study} of everything pertaining to he Bible. This includes history, geography, archeology and especially the study of the meanings of almost every word in the Bible. There is not a single word in the Bible that can be accurately equated with our English words in “main street USA”. I challenge anyone to do any exhaustive study on the words in the Bible that are translated “earth”, “land”, “world” and that amazing word “gentiles”. No dictionary will give an accurate and usable definition for the understanding of the Bible’ purpose and end. Let us stop this “heritic” and “excommunication” garbage business. After all, it seems to me that these discussions are about the tips of the branches of the tree. We need to go to the “root” before proceeding to the “fruit”. The “fruit”, in my estimation, deals with the end to which our remarkable Bible proceeds. We ain’t near there yet! Thanks for listening. LOU

Date: 22 Aug 2012
Time: 22:52:42

Your Comments:

I suppose that “heretic” means someone who doesn’t agree on every point of your “orthodoxy”. The assumption is that orthodoxy is always correct, at least to the person within that group that claims to be orthodox.

And how did that pan out in history? Lessee….Catholics burnt heretics… Puritans whipped Quakers out of town, tied to a cart.

The only TRUE orthodoxy is what the Lord Jesus Christ believes. I’d wager that, by Him, we could all be charged with heresy on one point or another.

Date: 03 Feb 2013
Time: 08:57:38

Your Comments:

your site introduced me to preterism many years ago. i believe in sovereign grace because i have expierienced it. i believe in the preterist interpretation because i see it it scripture. i believe the reason people don’t see and or depart from full preterism is because they don’t really understand sovereign grace, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. only he who knows God will understand what he has written

Leave a Reply

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