Hyperpreterism’s main focus within Christian circles is their effort to be seen as valid. Even when I was part of the hyperpreterist movement, I recall the many discussions hyperpreterists would have about the hope that one day, some “big name” would embrace hyperpreterism & then the movement would be launched into the mainstream. Well, that sentiment is still alive & well in the movement & the latest exampe of it comes from hyperpreterist debate-champion, Don Preston.
Recently, Bill Hill of the podcast program, “Covenant Radio” announced that he plans to do a “round-table discussion” about hyperpreterism (see ref), which would include Dr. Kenneth Gentry & Whitefield Theological Seminary President, Dr. Kenneth Talbot & an unnamed third participant.
The hyperpreterists have long been trying to gain validity by having Don Preston debate Dr. Gentry & now with this round-table they are clamoring for another chance. The hyperpreterists even started inundating Hill with emails trying to get him to invite Preston to debate Gentry or Talbot.
Preston even wrote a lengthy article/complaint of his own (see ref). In the complaint Preston tells us,
“When I was apprised of that upcoming program I immediately sent an email to William Hill suggesting that he sponsor a two hour debate between Kenneth Gentry and myself.” (D. Preston)
Preston & other hyperpreterists obviously don’t understand the concept of a ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION. Such a discussion usually takes one of two forms:
1. Pundits analyze a topic or subject but don’t actually have the object of the topic present.
2. Opponents of a position join in a discussion of the opposed position but don’t actually have a representative of the opposition present.
Preston goes on to point out how Hill has sponsored debates on his show before, even debates between hyperpreterists & Christians. Preston spends much time in the typical hyperpreterist practice of trying to psycho-analyze Hill’s motives. There are a few reasons beyond the normal why Preston should ESPECIALLY not engage in this practice.
1. Preston is typically out of the loop on what is going on around him. I recall how long it took him to address the growing universalism within hyperpreterism. He still doesn’t seem to want to do anything about the riff between the “Covenant Creationists” & the “Cosmological Creationists” within his own movement. Preston even says in his complaint that someone else “apprised” him of the pending round-table discussion.
2. Preston has NEVER answered for the way he ditched his congregation when they weren’t financially supporting his efforts to spread hyperpreterism (see ref).
How dare Preston smugly chide Hill when Preston is clearly guitly of the very things he implies of Hill. Preston even employs that same old tactic used by the hyperpreterist & homosexual movement alike — they claim people are “afraid”. Preston says:
“One can detect a good bit of fear, frustration and angst in this response. But, Mr. Hill is not through, for evidently the emails kept coming.” (D. Preston)
Preston, listen up — no one is afraid of hyperpreterists any more than we are of homosexuals — both DO disgust us, but fear? No! I’d of thought that you’d be more mature than the Jason Bradfields & Mike Bennetts of hyperpreterism, but apparently even the “leaders” of hyperpreterism are affected by the malady of moral malfeasance.
Further, Preston either lies or likely wasn’t “apprised” of what comments were ACTUALLY posted on the announcement since Preston wrongly states:
“What is even more interesting about Hill’s curt response is that some of the posters on his site are adamant enemies of true preterism, but they too are asking for a roundtable discussion between R. C. Sproul, Gentry, and representative leaders from the true preterist movement.” (D. Preston)
Well, I’m the nameless “adamant enemy” who posted the comment & it WASN’T as Preston depicts. I actually said:
“I’d like to see a panel of guys like R.C. Sproul Sr., Dr. Ken Gentry & others that hyperpreterists have desired to make into champions. We need to hear these men clearly distinguish the historical from the heretical.” (Roderick E)
I never ask for a hyperpreterist to be included, as a matter of fact, as a round-table discussion, I would urge against letting them participate. Will Preston retract his lie/misunderstanding???
But the most outrageous thing within Preston’s complaint is when he supposes to lecture Hill on what it means to be Reformed. Now, folks keep in mind that Preston is a “church of Christ” minister – from a long, long family line of “coC” ministers. And if you recall, the main premise of the “coC” denomination is that the true Church & true Gospel had failed & they had to “restore” it. SEE RESTORATION MOVEMENT. How dare this man try to employ the name of Martin Luther. Luther as much as he rejected the Papists soundly rejected the RADICALS who wanted to do as the hyperpreterists now & reject all of historic Christianity. Preston even ignores those FACTS about Luther & the Reformation & instead, like the typical hyperpreterist Preston tries to paint Luther as a wild-eyed radical like himself:
“Luther challenged the pope to formal debate! Had the pope taken Mr. Hill’s current position, he would have responded that, “No such debate will take place, so save yourself the trouble Mr. Luther, and do not bother challenging me again!” Perhaps he would have castigated brother Luther and his followers for “stooping” to such a level as to challenge him to a debate. Now, to be sure, the pope would have been far better off for himself had he done that, for he had much to lose– and he did lose it! I think one can see the parallels at work here, if I may say so.” (D. Preston)
The problem is, the comparison is wrong. Hyperpreterists are more like Andreas Karlstadt whom Luther not only didn’t debate, but Luther denied Karlstadt the right to preach or publish without his consent (look it up Preston, don’t wait for someone to “apprise” you of it) Further, hyperpreterists are like Michael Servetus who like hyperpreterists hounded & hounded the Reformers so as to seek validity. Whereas, Gentry’s famous line of warning not to interact with a hyperpreterist or you’ll “die the death of a thousand emails”, John Calvin & the other Reformers had to put up with the constant private-interpretation correspondance of the radicals of their day. THAT is the true “parallels at work” here Mr. Preston but since you & your “coC” heritage knows nothing of REAL history, you would not have known that. And interestingly enough, not a peep of a rebuke to you from the supposed token “Calvinists” within the hyperpreterist movement. They might give you a pass on your misinformation/lies, but we’re not.
Preston then relates how Hill formerly allowed some debates between Preston & others on the show, but what Preston deceitfully doesn’t tell his readers is that for a time Covenant Radio had a hyperpreterist for a co-host. Hill fully, & humbly admits he let some things slide at that time & was being somewhat influenced by his noble attempt to be friendly with his co-host.
Preston concludes by telling all his fellow hyperpreterists to listen to the round-table discussion since Preston plans to gather a round-table of fellow hyperpreterists (all named are “coC” hyperpreterist btw) to respond to Hill’s program. Good for them. Let the liars or “unapprised” remain outside the gates & hold all the round-tables they want. Christians are NOT required to allow such at the table, round, square or otherwise.