Preterist News

   One of the chief studies I’ve been engaged in of late is that of patrology.  This involves the study of the early church fathers, who have given us what we know as “orthodoxy.”  Although patrology (also known as patristics) does not necessarily include study of the creeds and confessions of Christendom, these creeds do nevertheless function as a backdrop to the teachings of those men who defended the faith, and whose writings have been preserved by the church.  The creeds will often be found, in their minutest particulars, to codify what the fathers believed regarding matters of Christian theology..

   Last night I was looking back through the Athanasian Creed, trying to see how far its statements deviate from Hyper-Preterist notions of orthodoxy.  This confession is recognized as embodying the Athanasian doctrine of the Nicene Council.  As for the time when it was written, opinions differ.  Ussher adopts A.D. 447 as its date, while Beveridge relegates its composition to the fourth century.  But it doesn’t really matter, because Christendom has universally accepted its dogmatic statements (exclusive of the anathemas, which have been dropped from most modern forms) as authoritative.

   The statement that caught my attention was this:

  “Who although He be God and man; yet He is not two, but one Christ.  One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the manhood into God.  One altogether; not by confusion of substance; but by unity of person.  For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and man is one Christ.”

   To begin with, the Hyper-Preterist must have several problems with this portion of the creed.  For most Hyper-Preterists claim that Christ is no longer in His physical body, but that He was divested of His manhood when He ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father.  This teaching is necesssary in order to corroborate Hyper-Preterism’s view of Acts 1: 11, where the angels said to the apostles that Christ would return “in like manner” as He ascended.  Now, if Christ ascended in His physical body, His return in “like manner” would imply a literal fulfillment of Revelation 1: 7, where we read: “And every eye shall see Him, and they also that pierced Him” (cf. Matthew 24: 30; Zech. 12: 10).   Since nobody actually “saw” Christ physically return when the temple was demolished in A.D. 70, Hyper-Preterists, to prevent their theology from being discredited, must claim that Christ shed His manhood when He ascended into a literal cloud.  But this means that upon His ascension He ceased to be “Christ” in the Athanasian sense.

   Such a view as Hyper-Preterism creates numerous Christological contradictions, resulting in a flat-out denial of Paul’s teaching that the veil which gives us entrance into God’s presence is the flesh of Christ (Hebrews 10: 20).  The physical death of Christ on Calvary’s cross caused the veil of the temple to be torn from top to bottom (see Matthew 27: 51); showing that the true propitiatory, which had been concealed during Old Testament times by the interposition of the worldly sanctuary (Hebrews 9: 8), was now fully displayed (Romans 3: 25).  The resurrected flesh of Jesus Christ is the means of man’s justification (Romans 4: 25).  According to the apostle, the only way whereby we can enter the holiest of all (i.e., gain access to the true propitiatory), is through Christ’s resurrected manhood.  But to be a Hyper-Preterist, you must reject this concept. 

   Another H.P. contradiction becomes noticeable, when we recognize that the above creedal statement defines the orthodox understanding of anthropology.  “For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and man is one Christ.”  Here is another concept which Hyper-Preterists end up denying, for they teach (just like the ancient Gnostics) that the body is not included in God’s redemptive work.  Therefore, they reason, the body cannot be part of the “real man.”  According to Hyper-Preterists, the real man is the soul.  But if such is the case, is not Christ’s incarnation rendered uneccessary??  I mean, why would Christ have to identify with our human bodies, to be made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1: 3), if the flesh is not part of true humanity??  And why did He have to suffer in the flesh, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter 2: 24)?  If the real man is the soul, there was no real need for Christ to have physically suffered on the cross at all.  He might have ‘died spiritually’ anywhere BUT on Calvary’s cross.  Gethesemane might have been sufficient… no?  In disavowing that the real man includes both body and soul, Hyper-Preterists  (according to the Athanasian parameters) must also reject the notion that Christ ever had to become incarnate in human flesh.  According to Hyper-Preterism, the “one Christ” could have been… God Himself.

   Of course, this article only briefly touches on some of the foremost heresies inherent in the Hyper-Preterist scheme.  There are dozens of others.  As I said some time ago, it is incontestable that Hyper-Preterism teaches “another Gospel,” for its proponents re-define the whole package of salvation.  Regardless of what H.P. pundits may claim, Hyper-Preterists are NOT Christians, nor do they deserve any place at the theological discussion table.  Rather, they need to be carefully fenced off from the rest of orthodox Christendom, that their theories do not pollute and infect the minds of others.  True, these statements may sound harsh, or even “sadistic.”  But when we realize what is at stake here  –  the redemption of man  –  a bit of acridity becomes warranted.  Indeed, the more I study the teachings of 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity, the more I see why Hyper-Preterists want desperately to push this evidence under the table, and act as if they’ve “risen above” the historical argument.  Which is why the more they dismiss what we’re saying, the more we ought to rub their noses in it.  Saith Irenaeus:

 ”Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavoring like slippery serpents to escape at all points.  Wherefore they must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth.  For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it” (Against Heresies, 3: 2: 3).