To listen to the show from the site please click the link provided below. To save this program to your portable listening device please right click the link below and select “save as”.

Christ the Alpha and the Omega

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/ddwao.html

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/holford.html

Christology A to Z

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenwho.html

Right click the following link to download to your PC or external audio device or double click and listen on site.

dorothy anderson returns to oz

Music from The Wizard of Oz Soundtrack

Dorothy’s return to Oz statement can be read in its entirety here.

Correction: Yannick Noah won the French Open in 1983 and not 1984 as I stated on the podcast. I apologize for the mistake.

Right click the following link to download to your PC or external audio device or double click and listen on site.

dorothy anderson returns to oz

Music from The Wizard of Oz Soundtrack

Dorothy’s return to Oz statement can be read in its entirety here.

Correction: Yannick Noah won the French Open in 1983 and not 1984 as I stated on the podcast. I apologize for the mistake.

Right click the link below and press “save as” to download this program.

The Antithesis Hour 1-20-2011

Right click the link below and select “save as” to download the program to a portable device or simply double click the link to listen from an on site audio player.

You can find Chris at the links below.

http://theopologetics.blogspot.com

http://theopologetics.podbean.com

www.preteristblog.com

My mom use to tell me lots of things. When I was a kid I use to say the word “never” quite a bit. Anytime I would  say the word “never” around her she would always say “never say never” son. I would still keep on chirping that tune and the funny thing is I usually, at some point in my life, wound up doing the never I said I wouldn’t do.

Yesterday I broadcast a short audio regarding a statement made by Roderick Edwards. It was very clear what he said and offered a link to his actual statement. Of course he responded and below is a portion of his response.

Notice how he said he “never” implied what he implied? Now have a look at the statement I told you about yesterday.

Two completely different statements aren’t they? He added some extra words to his previous statement, the one that he made just a few days before. He added words like “why” and “if” to make it sound as if my friend Paul and I were misquoting him.

This is what wolves do when they are caught red handed. He knows what he said yet still has the audacity to say that he “never” said or even implied what he clearly stated. It’s in black and white and permanently recorded for all the world to see.

What does Roderick Edwards really believe? It doesn’t really matter much as his story changes depending on the circumstances. He has a long history of revising history so my best advice to you is to not believe a single word that man says because you really don’t know what to believe. I’ll give you another example below of what I mean here.

I have DOZENS of reasons why I walked away from HIM but the main reason he no longer writes here is his claim that Hyper Preterism was a bigger deal then someone denying the Virgin Birth and the Trinity! See the link below and read the comments.

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/does-it-really-matter-if-jesus-wasnt-born-of-a-virgin/

You see. More proof that Roderick will say anything at anytime anywhere to anyone depending on the circumstances. That’s what wolves in sheep’s clothing do.

I know what my mom said about never but I can say with 100% certainty that I will NEVER trust Roderick Edwards and neither should you.

I posted this book review at Amazon.com on July 26, 2009. After renouncing full/hyper-preterism I left the book review posted at Amazon until December 2009, when I removed it because I did not want my review to in any way be responsible for the sales of a book which promotes a view I disagree with. At this time, I was informed by a friend that my complete book review was posted, without my permission, at one of the authors websites, that of Mike Sullivan. Source:
http://treeoflifeministries.info/index.php?view=article&catid=39%3Aopen-and-public-letters-&id=158%3Amike-sullivan-&option=com_content&Itemid=75

On Dec. 10, I wrote to Dave Green, another author of “House Divided” about something else and asked him if he would ask Mr. Sullivan to remove my review from his site, to which Sullivan declined. To Mr. Green’s credit, he did attempt to offer a compromise both myself and Sullivan would agree to, but nothing was resolved. I then contacted Sullivan directly. When I did not hear from him within a few days, I sent him another email on 12/16/09:

I am asking you to remove my review of “House Divided” from your website since I no longer hold to FP and in good conscience do not feel right about having my words used to help sell the book. When I first left FP, I left the review posted at Amazon.com, but recently removed it because it was bothering me to leave it there.

I then was told you had copied my review of the book from Amazon and placed it on your website. I think it important to note; this was done without obtaining my prior permission.

I am asking you, as one Christian to another, to please remove my review of “House Divided” from your website.

The same day Sullivan replied, saying unless there was a legal issue, he would keep it at his site. He wrote again, saying he had looked into it and there was nothing illegal or immoral “from one Christian to another” to keep it on his site, that my moral issue was in forsaking the authority of Scripture for church tradition. He then offered, “to be fair”, that if I answered a set of questions he had asked Roderick Edwards when he renounced full/hyper-preterism (several years ago), and if I wrote a paragraph by paragraph explanation refuting my book review he would post them at his site and go through them and compare them to Scripture.
On the 18th of December I emailed Mike the following:

[T]here is a difference between quoting portions of someone’s work in an article, which falls within fair use laws and copy and pasting someone’s complete work. That is something completely different and depending on circumstances, falls under copyright infringement laws. In this case, I believe you are infringing on my copyright status.

As far as giving Scriptural refutation, I have given reasons for my change of position. I disagree with 1) any kind of progressive justification, and 2) have posted articles and commented about the New Perspective on Paul being an influence on the FP paradigm/framework and I see issue with that approach.

And no, I will not give a paragraph by paragraph response to the review at this time. I believe my request to remove my article, based on my change of positions, is not unreasonable. Your request is not reasonable. I do not believe you are in a position to be setting the terms in this disagreement.

Amazon has copyright rules in regards to book reviews, which you might not be aware of. You did not ask my permission to post my review on your site. I am asking you, as one Christian to another Christian (and I don’t know why you put that in quotation marks in your reply to me.), to remove my book review from your site – not based on copyright laws Mike – but on an appeal to your integrity to remove it based on the fact that it is something which I do not desire to be out there in regards to promoting your book. If you do not want to comply, then not only am I very disappointed, but why don’t you just say so rather than setting all these terms?

So I am asking, once more, for you to please remove my book review from your website. I appreciate your contemplation on this matter.

Sullivan responded on the 19th, telling me integrity was the issue and that he didn’t see any coming from me on my change of positions (renounced full/hyper-preterism) or for not giving a paragraph by paragraph refutation of my book review. That the ONLY reason he would remove the review is if it was illegal for it to be posted. He also said if my ego was still an issue, or I thought his legal advice was incorrect, I could continue to pursue this “petty” issue.
On the 19th, I replied back as follows:

I take this as your final answer.

BTW, I said nothing about my “ego”. This is not about my “ego”. It is about my words being used to promote your book. That is what doesn’t sit right with me. You call this a “petty issue” but I do not see it as a “petty issue” at all.

Sullivan wrote back, agreeing it was his final answer. He also mentioned that several times at Dave Greens Yahoo list (PretCosmos) and on Facebook, he had asked for positive reviews to be posted at his website. I replied:

As for you asking for reviews to post on your website over at PretCosmos, I do not recall reading anything about that. As far as Facebook, I was not a member of Facebook back then so I would not have seen anything there. Please provide me a link to the posts at PretCosmos that you asked for reviews.

In reply, on Dec 21, Sullivan told me I could look through the PretCosmos archives myself, but that he was “pretty positive” that he had asked for reviews of the book. Again adding that he believed he was not violating any copyright laws.
As of this writing, Sullivan has not provided proof of his claim. This was the end of our personal discussion on the subject.
On January 28thh, 2010, I posted a paper on my site TheologyExplained.ning.com entitled, “The Greening of Eschatology” (source:
http://theologyexplained.ning.com/group/memberpresentation/forum/topics/the-greening-of-eschatology
). There was a discussion about this at PretCosmos and on the 30th, Sullivan wrote the following:

To all,

This is what Sharon wrote of Dave’s first two chapters before she decided to revere “Reformed” Mother Church over the Word of God. In light of Dave’s response to Sharon’s article, I would recommend that Sharon “read,” “read them again,” “read them once more” “absorb them,” and listen to the “compelling arguments” instead of misrepresenting them or perpetually having to re-write her straw-man “responses”/articles.

I have requested that Sharon answer the Biblical questions I asked Roderick (which he promised to answer and never did), but she has declined. This ties into the other posts which deal with – what do they now believe after leaving FP. They don’t know what to do with the texts that support FP and that demonstrate that PP and Amillennialism inevitably leads to and teaches FP:

Following this, Sullivan posted the first five paragraphs of my book review. (see above)

Since Sullivan mentioned his “request” for me to answer the questions he had asked Roderick, I wrote the following, also on the 30th:

As you know, I’ve asked you to remove my review from your website and you refused. I stated you never had my permission to post it on your website to begin with, but you stated you would not remove it anyway. I am asking you again to please remove my previous review of “House Divided” from your website.

Adding just a few minutes later:

BTW, Mike, why don’t you tell everyone the situation surrounding this “request” of yours? Why don’t you enlighten everyone and tell them that your “request” was actually a condition you issued to me so that you would remove my review from your website

In response, again on the 30th, Sullivan wrote the following:

Sharon,

“As you know…”:

1) There was never a problem (and you never would have had a problem) with me posting your review on my site until you wanted to embrace reformed creedalism.
2) Per Ed Hassertt (one trained in these kind of legal matters), there is nothing illegal in having your review on my site (contrary to your insinuations in private emails).
3) I have no problem sharing with the list my proposal to you and am thankful for your introduction:

a) If Sharon answers my Biblical questions posed to ECKwards and…
b) gives a paragraph by paragraph response to her own review and explains logically and biblically why her initial comments were wrong, then…
c) I would post everything she wrote on the subject on my site and respond and likewise give other FP responses (such as Dave’s thus far).
d) This was a Biblical and fair approach.

4) Sharon, one of my exegetical and Biblical questions given to ECKwards (and now you) centered around Matthew 24. AGAIN which verses are addressing an AD 70 coming of Jesus (AD 70 fulfillments) and which ones are addressing an alleged future coming (future fulfillments) – and why? Then begin dealing with my “charts” on Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 which you praised in your review.
5) You are now embarrassed that you are unable to deal with Dave’s “compelling arguments” and my “charts” which prove REFORMED THEOLOGY….: 1) PP (the time texts “demand” that Christ returned in AD 70) and 2) Classic Amillennialism (the NT teaches only ONE coming of Jesus) form 3) Full Preterism (“Semper Reformanda” – The ONE second coming of Jesus happened in AD 70).

Mike S.

To which I replied:

There IS a problem because I NEVER gave you permission to post my review on your website. I did not even know it was there until shortly before I emailed you about it back in December. And it really doesn’t matter if you think I wouldn’t have had a problem or not. The fact is, you did not, nor do you now, have permission to post my review at your website.

And let’s be real Mike. The reason I declined to answer any of your questions is because it was a demand you issued to me, which, if I complied, you would “consider” removing my review from your website.

And this has nothing to do with being embarrassed. I do NOT want to be a part of promoting the sales of the book!

I am again requesting you remove my review from your website.

To which Sullivan replies:

You are mistaken – the reason you and ECKwards never answered my Biblical questions is because you obviously are unable to do so.

My answer remains the same.

Following this was a discussion between Ed Hassert, Sullivan’s legal counsel, and me. On the 30th Hassert posted:

Legally, any book review published to a public site or published in a public paper grants the rights to the author or publisher of the reviewed work to reuse and republish as desired as long as the review is reproduced in full and the original author is cited.

Your dishonesty and lack of character in abusing those you once called friends does not change the law, or that the review is public domain. Check copyright law!”

Sullivan reads this, quotes it in a post and adds: “Therefore, let me quote Sharon “in full”:” and follows this by posting my full book review on PretCosmos! (Which, btw, is another copyright infringement.)

In regards to what Ed Hassert wrote I asked him, “If you would kindly provide proof of this exception to the copyright law, I would appreciate it. He said it was not an exception to copyright law. From here we had an ongoing discussion about copyright laws, which included the Terms and Conditions posted at Amazon.com. It was asserted that Sullivan, as a Seller on Amazon, has the right to publish my book review without explicit permission by me. I challenged that assertion. In order for this to be true, Sullivan would have to be an “Affiliate/Associate” or “Sublicensee” of Amazon, not just under the standard “Participant” Agreement. I stated this issue could be put to bed very easily. Simply provide me a copy of the agreement showing the relationship Sullivan has with Amazon. His agreement should clearly state what rights he has been given by Amazon. In the ongoing discussion I posted the following on Jan. 31st:

You say I posted the wrong section. I know what section you posted your information from. What I posted is the link to the section for those who want to sell something through Amazon. It is the “Participation Agreement”. I was ASKING if this was the agreement you have with Amazon to sell your book. In this section it distinguishes between “Affiliates” of Amazon and “Participatants”, i.e. those who are selling something at Amazon.

Now, did you sign up with Amazon through the Participation Agreement? Or some other way?

I still have not been presented with his agreement, or any other proof which disproves his copyright infringement of my book review.
To his credit, on Feb 27th Ed Hassert offered a compromise. He wrote: Often people are quoted with their old views and new views to show contrasts and contradictions. If Mike posted both your old review and your new review, would you see that as a reasonable compromise?

I replied: I wouldn’t have a problem if at Mike’s site, under my name and before the book review itself, a note was placed stating I am no longer a full-preterist. But rather than posting my whole paper, if after the old book review, he would place a link to my paper at Theology Explained, I would be agreeable to that.

Agreed?

But, Sullivan did not agree. So this is where it stands right now. It would be easy enough to prove me wrong by providing me a copy of his Seller agreement with Amazon. But this has not been provided to me. Why not?

From my research, and the advice of three different lawyers, I own the copyright to my book review. The assertion above that a book review automatically becomes freely usable by the author of the book being reviewed makes no sense to me, considering there are people who write book reviews for a profession.

At one point, it was stated that by Fair use Laws, Sullivan has the right to publish my book review but this contradicts other assertions which were made, that my book review was not covered by Copyright Laws. Fair Use Laws ONLY applies to copyright material. If, as was claimed, my book review is not considered copyrightable, then how can Fair Use Laws apply?

Mr. Sullivan, the burden of proof is on you. Provide to me solid proof you are not infringing on my copyright or remove my book review from your website.

Links:
PretCosmo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PretCosmos/messages

Theology Explained:
http://theologyexplained.ning.com/

Sharon’s original review can be accessed at the link below;

Review of House Divided 07

Roderick "The White Dwarf" Edwards

On today’s podcast I address accusations leveled against me by Roderick Edwards. Right click the link below and select “save as” to download the program to a portable device or simply double click the link to listen from an on site audio player.

The link to the accusations by Edwards

http://preteristnews.com/2009/12/27/who-is-phil-naessens-2/#comment-320

The email sent to me from Edwards in regards to “guest blogging” at TT which shatters his allegations that “one day he was just allowed to post articles at TT.

Roderick Edwards <rodericke@xxxxxx.net> Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Reply-To: rodericke@xxxxxx.net

To: theology.today@gmail.com

Cc: yomiadegboye@xxxx.xxx

Hello Phil & Yomi,

I am asking if you would consider posting this article as guest blog on your site. Thanks either

way. I know you & I seem to be at loggerheads at times, but I think it is just a difference of

approach.

My reply?

phil naessens <theology.today@gmail.com> Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:05 AM

To: rodericke@xxxxxxxxl.net

Hello,

I’ll post this either later today or early tomorrow my time. This is good work. If you have similar work I’ll post that as

well. If you have similar work in other areas I’ll post that as well…

Thanks,

Phil

Link to where I challenged a hyper preterist to a debate;

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/oops-i-forgot-to-tell-you-all-something/comment-page-1/#comment-3954

Roderick Edwards repeatedly referring to Hyper Preterists as “Full Preterists”

Matthew 10:5-15

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. “Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Jesus was instructing His disciples not to sell their spiritual gifts but to give them away freely, as they received their gifts freely from Him. Teaching is one of those gifts yet “Railing Roderick” would rather accuse an elder of “buying his influence” rather then recognizing a generous man doing EXACTLY what he feels led by God to do.

I have a plaque that hangs behind my desk at the tennis academy that bears my name. It reads “No good deed ever goes unpunished” and I’m sorry to say but this supposed “Christian” has made those words come to life with his unfounded accusations against an elder who has faithfully served the Body of Christ. Dr. Kenneth Talbot’s crime? Giving away free books, DVD’s and scholarships to deserving students he feels God has led him to feed.

Wait! Unless the recipients of Dr. Talbot’s generosity came to his Seminary, or house, or whatever, to pick up the freebies, he had to send them which means, unless Dr. Talbot has a flock of carrier pigeons in his backyard (do you sir cause that would be cool), he had to pay for this out of his own pocket!

Dr. Talbot, you have some nerve to do these things! Anathema to you sir (but I think Boyd might adopt you!)!!!!

I say break out the green wood and let’s roast this heretic, this Dr. Talbot! How DARE he be generous to those he cares about and wants to see become better Christians and teachers/apologists/pastors! Again, anathema to this Dr. Talbot!!!

How dare Dr. Talbot give away scholarships to deserving students who may not have the coins to benefit from his Seminary! How dare he show charity and love for others rather then enlarge his bank account! I think Dr. Talbot needs to spend more time here at Theology Today learning from the pimps we criticize for doing the OPPOSITE of what he’s done!

See, Dr. Talbot hasn’t figured out quite yet that its better to have bad theology       and a big bank account then to have solid theology and freely give to those in  need. Apparently you get hammered either way so it’s better to be rich and criticized then poor and criticized……forget about feeding the sheep Dr. Talbot you are supposed to be FLEECING them!

OK. Now its time to be serious……….

I find it HIGHLY hypocritical of Roderick Edwards (no news there huh) that he could even SPEAK about ethics and morality when his has been questioned here here here and here and he has failed to respond to ANY of the SEVERAL ethical concerns raised.

I wonder what 2000 years of Christianity would say about that, huh Roderick. Wonder what Calvin and Luther and Warfield and whoever else you stumble across on Wikipedia would say about HYPOCRISY……..Jesus had this to say;

Matthew 7:3-5

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

The bottom line? Roderick got his hat handed to him by Dr. Talbot in a debate here here and here (1) and when no one came to his defense he lashed out just like a spoiled little boy who didn’t get his way. This is EXACTLY the way he acted during his 15 years as a Hyper Preterist. Ironic huh?

The only thing Roderick Edwards gives freely is grief and bad theology, something he has an abundance of. He is the PERFECT example of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I also find it interesting how Roderick compares what goes on in the world (politicians, his office) with Dr. Talbot freely feeding the sheep as he’s commanded to do. I guess since Roderick is OF this world he’s only talking about what he knows. Perhaps Roderick should turn off Fox News, shut down his computer, and spend some time with Jesus…….since that probably won’t be happening anytime soon a psychiatrist is DEFINITELY in order.

Yep, a wolf in sheep’s clothing is putting it mildly where Roderick Edwards is concerned.

Well, that’s going to wrap it up around here for 2009. I want to thank each and every one of my faithful readers for your support and prayers during what has been a difficult 2009 here at Theology Today.

On behalf of Boyd Miller and myself, we would like to wish you a healthy, happy pimp and wolf free 2010! May God Bless Each and Every One of You and if Jesus doesn’t return we’ll be back in 2010!

1). Preterist Blog has disassociated itself with Mr. Edwards

Roderick,

I do know what REAL libel and REAL slander is and experienced far worse then you could ever imagine. But you keep playing the victim. It suits you.

Slander and Libel do come with the territory when dealing with heretics. Of course my posting and the last two podcasts referred to YOUR Slander and YOUR Libel. While I appreciate your past struggles with others I only speak for your Libel and Slander. Why is it not OK for a non Christian to Libel and Slander but its ok for YOU, a professing Christian to Libel and Slander others? That doesn’t make much sense does it?

Thanks for the “exegesis”. Regardless of how self serving and errant it was I did pay attention to what you have written and thank you for taking time from your busy day to allow me and others to see your skills. Maybe that was the REAL reason for my posting that blog post?

I find it HIGHLY hypocritical of you to demand that I be biblical when you sir have failed to demonstrate how you can make accusations against an elder without 2 or 3 witnesses which was the FOCUS of my last 2 podcasts. Care to share with your readers why you don’t have to be biblical or is that requirement for everyone else BUT you? I think I’m hearing crickets again.

Let’s take a look at why I produced those 2 podcasts in the first place and line that up with your “exegesis”……

(Mat 18:15) “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.

Roderick’s Slander of Dr. Kenneth Talbot was public but I attempted to go to him privately because I didn’t want him to “worm” his way out of it by crying foul. He refused to interact with me and labeled me a “compromiser”.

(Mat 18:16) But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

‘

This step was followed as well. Roderick refused to hear us and again he referred to me and others as “compromisers” and “sell outs”.

(Mat 18:17) If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Roderick refused to hear us so I went to “the church” and in this case the WWW because that’s the church Roderick “worships” in and where his libel and slander takes place on a daily basis.

Roderick is still refusing to hear us. We have not won our brother and now we are commanded to treat him like a “pagan” and a “tax collector” which is the opposite of a brother.

Lets move on shall we?

(1Co 5:9) I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–

Paul’s getting to the bottom line and not just labeling sexual immorality as the only reason to cast someone out.

(1Co 5:10) not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

The above would not be Christian’s right. We expect unregenerate people to be immoral don’t we and we can associate with these people just not in Spiritual matters……

(1Co 5:11) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat

.

Paul says we aren’t to associate with “brothers” like those mentioned above. Roderick Edwards is an unrepentant slanderer and we aren’t to associate with him at all and as Jesus said we are to treat him as a tax collector.

(1Co 5:12) What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside

?

Roderick claims to be a Christian and claims Hyper Preterists aren’t Christians yet pouts about why I’ve done my last 2 podcast’s about him. Paul says we are to judge the Christian and not the others but Roderick complains about me following Paul to the letter and he’d rather me expose the sins of the world as opposed to exposing his sins (Ephesians 5:11).

(1Co 5:13) God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

All biblical avenues have been employed to get Roderick Edwards to repent of his slanderous ways. His refusal to hear us and repent leaves us no choice but to expel this wicked man from among us.

Now, lets look at whether we should take someone like Roderick Edwards to court. This is what Roderick claims;

So, Phil if you want to take us to the law before unbelievers, just remember it is to YOUR shame, and YOUR lack of wisdom, and YOUR utter failure, and YOU would be the one doing wrong and cheating. — As these verses clearly point out. Phil, you would then be saying you have less respect for the Scriptures and for fellow Christians then you claim. I even respect the hyperpreterists more than you respect us, for I have never threatened to sue any of them, per chance some may actually be brothers in Christ. You sir are the one in the wrong and no amount of polling people on your site to see if they support your actions is going to change your direct violation of 1 Cor 6:4-8. Pray about it. (source)

Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 6, or at least verse 1 and see who should really be ashamed here shall we?

(1Co 6:1) If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

Paul was writing to Christians here and he’s imploring them to not bring a fellow brother in Christ to court. Roderick says if I do that with him it would be to MY shame, MY lack of wisdom, MY utter failure and I would be wrong and cheating. He’s right. If I did this with a “brother” that is. The bible says Roderick Edwards is NOT our brother and WE should expel this wicked man and treat him like a heathen and a tax collector.

Not everyone claiming and professing Christianity actually is one. That’s why we are to “test all things” (1Thess 5:21) which includes the professing believers fruit (Galatians 5:22-23) to determine whether or not the professing Christian is a brother or not. Remember the words of Christ?

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Am I going to sue Roderick Edwards? No and it was never my intention to do so. I was merely using Roderick and his new best friend for the moment as an example of folks hiding behind a profession of Christianity and using Scripture as a “get out of jail free card” to escape accountability. As you witnessed that’s exactly what Roderick has attempted to do.

The bottom line here is this. We are to never sue a brother in Christ. Test all things to determine if the offending person is indeed a brother. Follow Matthew 18 to the letter and if the individual continues to sin against you expel him from among you. If the individual continues then don’t worry about 1Corinthians 6 because that’s for brothers and not for how we deal with those in the world.

——————————————————————————————————

UPDATE 12/11/2009

Roderick has responded and you can read his entire response here. I felt the following certainly was interesting;

Phil Naessens, tennis coach in Corfu Greece and self-styled “exposer” has been trying to do all he can to make a name for himself among the hyperpreterists AND the Dr. Talbot-led “anti-hyperprets”. His latest effort is to do what Phil is known to do; insert himself into situations. For example, whereas MOST of the people combating hyperpreterism have a direct link to the hyperpreterist movement (often by being former hyperpreterists), unlike Phil who inserts himself into the “ministries” of folks like “Perry Noble”, “John Chisham”, “Tony Jones”, “Ken Silva”, “Chuck Smith”, “David Norris” and on & on. Whether these men are erroneous teachers is beside the point.

Anyhow, Phil has been trying to insert himself into the hyperpreterist issue. He thinks he has it all figured out — who is doing what and why. He thinks he has me and others pegged as the bad guys, even though recently Phil found out first hand, hyperpreterist leader Sam Frost had been perpetuating a major lie (ref). But Phil doesn’t care about the FACTS — he has a role to play after all.

I find the comment that I “insert myself into situations” sorta strange when all I’m doing is following the sage advice Roderick gave us all here.

I guess its hunky dory to insert oneself in someone’s business as long as it isn’t Roderick’s business!

One more thing; had I not inserted myself in the situation Roderick would have one less reason to attack Sam Frost. Considering that’s his mission on earth you’d think Roderick would thank me right? Guess not.

I have to ask everyone here, if you read the statement “All Rights Retained by Author” attached to an article, how would you respond? (link) (link) Would you consider that work under heavy copyright?  Would you consider that the author wants to control where and who has access to his work?  When looking at his copyright page, which is also part of his index on his home page, he is very clear about usage.  (link)

At one time or another, we all have violated copyright.  Often it’s buried in the fine print and sometimes it just isn’t real clear.  But when I see it attached to an article, I have good reason to believe this author is pretty serious about the use of his work.  After all, he does have rights under civil law in this country. (Rom 13:1-7)

I would also like to point out that it’s not like Theology Today hasn’t already experienced misuse of work from here.  Once with Phil’s work pulled to SGP and my comments pulled to the Preterist Debate site which were removed.  Since this is a pretty fresh topic, I admit I have a real hard time with “All Rights Retained by Author” escaping anyone’s attention.  In fact, it’s our recent discussions that sent me searching out another author for permission to continue using his work.  He was grateful I came to him because he had received a publishing offer and while he still granted me rights, he requested I use some limitations, which I’ve done.

I also asked Mr. Booth if he had authorized the use of his work at the Preterist Debate site and gave him the link.  Here is Mr. Booth’s response which he has graciously offered me permission to post publicly:

From: sitemanagerb@thefaithfulword.org

To: Dorothy

Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 8:28 AM

Subject: Preterism

Dear Dorothy,

Thank you for writing back.  First, let me say that I am encouraged that you are active in studying Christian doctrine.  What we believe about God greatly impacts how we behave here on this earth.

First, no, I have not given this group or site permission to re-post my writings.

Second, I am only moderately familiar with the concept of preterism.  From what little I do know of the doctrine, I think I would likely not include myself as a partial, full, or hyper-preterist.

My opinion is:  It is us, the Gentile church, that is grafted into the vine, not the other way around.  The Jews are the natural branches.  God is only using us temporarily to make the Jews jealous enough to return to Him (Romans 10:19, 11:11).  Thus, the church is not the state of Israel.  Israel will stand to receive all the fulfilled promises of God in the millenium (e.g. peace, prosperity, long lives, Jesus ruling from the temple on Mt. Zion, etc.).

Finally, anyone who actually knows me would laugh themselves silly to think I would not hold to a literal judgment.  The reason this is so funny is that last week I taught a class (the book of Romans) in which we went through the final judgment in great detail.  True, there is nothing funny about the judgment itself, but the thought that there would not be one in light of the scriptural evidence is absurd to the point of comedy.

Thank you again for writing.

Craig W. Booth

I invited Mr. Booth here to say this personally, but he declined because he is quite busy with other matters BUT, he in writing me today he said he supports the issuing of a rebuke on his behalf to the Preterist Debate website that has been re-posting his copyright articles without his permission.

Right click the link below and select “save as” to download the program to a portable device or simply double click the link to listen from an on site audio player.

Part 1: The Jacksonville Blogger

FBC Jax Watchdog: Moving to a New Phase

Part 2: What else? Spiritual Pathways Ministries

New Podcast and a New Location! « Theology Today

Part 3: Preterist Debate: Sharon Nichols, Minna Hill, Silly Willy

Blogs – Preterist Debate

“Dancin Shoes” by Nigel Olsson

1). What specifically convinced you to believe that 2000 years of biblical interpretation was wrong regarding the second coming of Christ?

2). What specifically convinced you (ex believers in Full Preterism) that Jesus didn’t return in 70AD?

3). What would it take to convince those who currently believe that all was not fulfilled in 70AD to abandon this belief system?

Thanks in Advance,

Phil

I thought I would touch on another issue that is unresolved in hyper-preterism. What do they do with that pesky ole devil?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This is fulfilled based on their eschatology. The question is – who or what is/was Satan? Is he still active today? How do they define him/it?

Ask the hyper-preterists and you’ll again get a lot of varied answers and don’t be surprised to see more questions than answers. That’s a technique that serves to deflect the issue on the table.

My position today is this: If they want to lay claim to the start of the next reformation, they must have a prepared response here. Luther wasn’t negligent in that area. Since their position requires a defeat of Satan, inquiring minds want to know. Who or what is/was Satan that proves this scripture is fulfilled?

I think you’ll find the devil is in the details and no, I don’t need to debate this issue. I want to see a somewhat unified agreement. What’s all these years of study produced?

I think the readers here will find the answers to this question quite illuminating.

Now’s your chance HP’s! Show the world what all this scholarship has produced.

For further reading please consider the following links;

http://www.preterist.org/preteristQA.asp#question25

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/2004_simmons_red-dragon.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/2001_mcpherson_satan-exist.html

Recently Theology Today began examining the subject of eschatology. There are various opinions being presented on that particular thread and I’ve been asked by a reader who knows little about this topic the following question;

How did they arrive at the conclusions they have reached? Here’s the link;

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/return-from-oz-by-dorothy-anderson

I thought this was a pretty fair question in light of James stern warning to all that claim to be teachers;

James 3:1 NASB

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Fairly straight forward don’t you think?

I’m not just asking the eschatologists to demonstrate how they arrived at what they believe but I’m asking each of you the same question and as I thought about how to present this the following verse popped into my head;

2 Timothy 2:15 NASB

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

How did you study?

Did you arrive at your conclusions using Scripture alone?

Do you use a commentary/commentaries? Lexicon? Which ones?

How important is prayer to your study?

How important were the creeds and church history in your study?

Good questions eh? I’m looking forward to your responses!

Editors Note: Dorothy Anderson returned to the heresy of Full/Hyper Preterism in 2010.

As I mentioned earlier in my posts, I left the full preterist movement and today I’m presenting the first of a series of articles on why I left, what full preterism professes, how they get people to embrace their system, and what’s so unorthodox about it. No promises on the timing of these articles. They will come forth when I’m ready to do so.

When you battle full preterism, you often do it alone because there are so few who know the system well enough to come to your aid. For those who have left, it is often hand to hand combat if they elect to speak out, so many remain silent. Lack of knowledge in the position within the orthodox community leaves it wide open for a breach in scriptural rebuttal and full preterism uses that breach to further their cause. May I add, I certainly don’t profess to have all the answers. I can profess that while full preterism has straightened out some areas, I am confident that full preterism is not the final answer and creates larger problems than it solves.

First, no one who picks up Holy Scripture in study ever considers they could find themselves in a false (unorthodox) belief system. We are all reliant and believing on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth and He will. The problem resides within us and in our desire to share our discoveries with others that we can unwittingly let man influence our thinking. It’s so subtle that we just don’t see it coming. It reminds me of the conversation between Eve and the serpent in the garden.

Before I talk about the fatal errors of full preterism, here are some of the things that I kept in mind that I am confident were the catalyst to bring me out. I think these should work for other false belief systems and maybe you have some you would like to add to the list.

1) Keep studying with open ears and eyes.

2) Keep a list of unresolved scriptures where you can review it regularly.

3) Don’t ever try to cram scripture into your belief system.

4) If others tell you that you hold a heretical position, don’t take that lightly.

5) Don’t ever assume that just because someone won’t take time to reveal your scriptural error that they can’t.

6) Scripture should always be your plumb line, but you can not and should not ignore the GREAT CLOUD OF WITNESSES whose TESTIMONY resides in 2000 years of Church historical documents found in the creeds and confessions. *

*Important to note: On number 6, when it comes to the “end times” (eschatology), the Church has always held a “futurist position”. No one who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 took a full preterist (scripture was totally fulfilled) position. They still expected “something else”. To be honest with the full preterist position, you have to acknowledge that you are going against 2000 years of Church history.

Some claim that the Holy Spirit is revealing this truth to them, but what they are really saying is that for 2000 years the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to believe and promote a lie. When I came to that logical conclusion, I knew something was very wrong.

The problem resided in the fact that I didn’t know what Church history taught until I was declaring myself in the full preterist position. Full preterists will never tell you that their system denies the bodily resurrection of the dead. They will always approach you through eschatology in order to sell you their “timing” of events. There are over 100 time texts to deal with making their system alluring. AFTER you adopt their “timing” then you are placed in a position where you eventually have to deal with the resurrection, and among preterists, that has not been a simple resolution. The only way to make it fit into their system is to redefine or marginalize it.

So if you’re paying attention, at this point we have two major creed/confessional problems with full preterism.

1) A denial of futurist eschatology and judgment

2) A denial of a bodily resurrection

In case you think I made an error by not beginning with an explanation of what full preterism is or believes. Let me say, no full preterist will begin by revealing all the conclusions of their position, so I am using their formula of revelation. If I told you what they profess in total, you probably wouldn’t read further and like others, wouldn’t recognize it as they present it so you could be their next convert.

Also, know if you see the names covenant eschatology, realized eschatology or fulfilled eschatology, they are all names for the same “dog”.

I do believe full preterism is dying out. The reason: In order to have fellowship today and further their studies, a large number of full preterists have been reduced to embracing those who hold the full preterist position regardless of their other doctrinal beliefs, like denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, universalism, denial of the trinity, the emergent Church “truth can’t be known”, etc. I know that sounds nuts, but they are so convinced of their eschatological position, everything else takes a back seat, including sound doctrine.

As a final note to this first post, I would like to say that there is a variety of preterism now called partial or historical preterism. It is the belief that the majority of prophecies in the New Testament find fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. It is sound and is the historical position of the Church.

So, my advice at this point, should you run into a “preterist”, don’t hesitate to ask them if they believe in a future bodily resurrection. This will quickly identify what garden variety of preterist you are talking to.

More later….