A Mixed Bag, really | When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism ...

Must Read for Evangelicals | When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism

books:


	• When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism P & R Publishing, 2004 - 376 pages average customer review:based on 49 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

Thinking of Buying into Hyper-Preterism, then buy this book

If you are thinking of buying into hyper-preterism, then I think this book is a worthy purchase and read, especially for Strimple's chapter on the resurrection. This, I believe, is at heart in the issue with hyper-preterism. The FACT that Jesus Christ, the second Adam, rose bodily (self-same body he was crucified, dead, and buried with), bringing immortality to light and all who are in the Messiah will be like him settles the issue.

With that said, I had to give it three stars because I don't believe this book quite hits the mark for several reasons. First, the conglomeration of authors do not set forward a positive eschatology. Obviously, the point of this book is not to positively set forth an eschatology in toto, but to critique hyper-preterism without really offering an alternative is not that helpful. The critique would have been strengthened by positively setting forth an eschatlogy. Second, the conglomeration of authors personally offer different perspectives on eschatology. For example, Ken Gentry, whose chapter on the creeds is excellent and well worthwhile, is a strong advocate of a pre-ad 70 dating for the book of Revelation and, as far as I know, so is Keith Mathison. Then why would Keith Mathison, the editor of this work, include a chapter by Kistemaker arguing, at least in part, for a late date of Revelation? Granted, I can accept a late date for Revelation and this would do away with hyper-preterism, but to a layman versed in basic eschatology you are left asking, "What does this intramural debate mean to these authors?" Third, I wish the authors would have done more Biblical and exegetical work. Strimple's chapter, I believe, does the best job interacting with hyper-preterists and exegeting 1 Corinthians 15 as well. Mathison's chapter touches on this, but the other chapters aren't as thorough as I would've liked. The other chapters are all good, worthwhile reads, but if you are a hyper-preterist or thinking about hyper-preterism, then I really don't think these chapters are as convincing as they could be.

Overall, I give the book three stars. It is good, but not great.

for more information click here

A Mixed Bag, really

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.

for more information click here

Must Read for Evangelicals

I felt like a knight on a white horse had come to my rescue after reading this book. Gentry's description of hyperpreterists as combative, naive, millitant, etc. rang perfectly true -- I should know, I'm married to one. But instead of using frothing emotion and schizophrenic theological reasoning he stays on track with calm reasoning.

I've often felt that hyper preterists used the same "logic" as JW's and this book cited many reasons I hadn't even thought of. My main beefs with hyperpreterism are: 1. there is no love in their attack to win converts. They're preterists before Christians and although they have no time to tell an unbeliver about the gospel, they'll spend every waking minute trying to argue everyone they know into preterism. 2. There is no accountability so they are free to sin (my husband is a hyper Calvanist too, surprised?) 3. Although their interpretation of a scripture *may* be true, they never admit that an opposing interpretation may be true. It's either A or B. Which one, they demand? Does it mean A or B? When the real answer is C but they never allow that choice to be entertained.

Anyway, I'm grateful for this book -- not that it would change anything if my husband read it. He is not willing to change his position for any reason or reasoning. I'm glad to see one reviewer was saved from this growing cult by the book.

for more information click here