Hyper-preterism: Creeds & Councils

How much more will this be the case with anyone who by wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becomes defiled. He will go away into everlasting fire, and so will everyone that listens to him. - Ignatius

A novel strain of Gnosticism, termed Hyper-preterism, is infiltrating today's Christian community. This movement revived outdated doctrines previously denounced as heretical by various historical church councils and confessions. This contemporary eschatological theory is characterized by its radical denial of four essential Christian beliefs: (1) the denial of a physical resurrection; (2) the rejection of Christ's physical return; (3) the negation of a final judgment; and (4) the dismissal of an ultimate culmination of history.

Some of these Gnostic repudiations have roots dating back to the first century. The Sadducees, for instance, espoused the belief that "there is no resurrection" (Matthew 22:23), while others propagated ideas that undermined faith, asserting that "the resurrection has already happened." (2 Timothy 2:18). Various unorthodox systems, including Socinians, Arians (modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses), liberalism, and the contemporary mystics of New Age philosophy, have also embraced these Gnostic teachings, particularly the concept of a non-bodily resurrection.

In addressing the church of his time, the apostle Peter issued a warning about the perils of destructive doctrines and their impact on the visible church. He stated, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3). It is the responsibility of every Christian, particularly the pastors of the church of Jesus Christ, to safeguard the flock against heresies that blaspheme the truth of Scripture.

In the words of Paul: “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”

Ecclesiastical authorities must avert their attention from individuals who distort the Gospel of Jesus Christ and propagate erroneous doctrines that undermine the foundational tenets of the Christian faith.

Two specific issues raised by the Hyper-preterists require addressing before delving into a Scriptural rebuttal against this deviant teaching. The first pertains to the doctrine of sola Scriptura, while the second involves eschatological councils.

Sola Scriptura

The primary concern revolves around Hyper-preterism's claim regarding sola Scriptura (the principle of Scripture alone). Hyper-preterists maintain their commitment to sola Scriptura while simultaneously arguing that other Evangelicals do not share the same commitment. They assert that, in contrast to relying on Scripture, other Evangelicals depend on interpretative frameworks presented in confessions and creeds upheld by the church for more than two millennia. This is a false dilemma.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.¹

Sola Scriptura asserts that the fundamental and ultimate standard for all matters of doctrine, encompassing every aspect of life, is the Word of God—specifically, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. Scripture stands as the sole infallible authority, holding a monopoly on truth. This perspective aligns with the declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

However, what is often misunderstood is that the doctrine of sola Scriptura accepts the utilization of biblically grounded Christian tradition, as evident in the creedal statements of the church of Christ. Creedal theology has consistently been viewed as a secondary norm in theology. It's crucial to note that during the Reformation, the debate about tradition was not centered on established, biblically-based creedal theology. Instead, the contention was with the "extra-Biblical tradition" established by the Roman Catholic Church, which lacked a Scriptural foundation and was consequently deemed unacceptable. The Reformers asserted the absolute authority of Scripture while acknowledging the value of established, biblically based creedal doctrines formulated by the church since its early post-apostolic days. They recognized the benefit of such creedal teachings for (1) instructing the church in the truth of Scripture and (2) defending the faith against non-Scriptural truth claims.

Creedal theology is a valuable tool for teaching and defending the Christian faith. The creeds and confessions, functioning as subordinate standards, enable the church, described as "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), to articulate biblical doctrine and better preserve it. The Reformers and Christianity, in general, clearly distinguished between the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God and the creedal theology systematically developed by the church. The creeds and confessions of the church hold authority to the extent that they align with the teachings of the Bible.

The present writer considers the Westminster Confession of Faith to be the most exemplary representation of Biblical theology in contemporary Christendom. According to the confession, its teachings should be understood in the context of Scripture.

X. The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.²

Historic councils and confessions are products of Biblical exegesis. Whether we agree with the conclusions drawn is a matter of personal judgment. However, labeling confessional declarations as "hyper-confessionalism," as some Hyper-preterists have done, is misleading. The authority of church creeds and confessions as subordinate standards lies in their Scriptural foundation. These documents result from the theological acumen of some of the most brilliant minds ever raised up in the church by God.

The three significant confessions of the 17th century – the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Congregational Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession (1689) – serve as the pinnacle creeds of a millennium and a half of doctrinal work in the church. They exhibit a remarkable harmony of doctrine, with approximately ninety percent alignment in their teachings. It is crucial to approach the rejection of such creeds with caution, considering they reflect the insights of numerous great minds bestowed by God upon the church.

Additionally, the teachings of eminent theological scholars throughout the history of the church, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Francis Turretin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, and W. G. T. Shedd, should be taken into account. These individuals, alongside numerous other scholars and ministers who adhered to orthodox church teachings, including their views on eschatology, are the foundational figures in the Christian faith. Hebrews 13:7 urges believers to remember and follow those who have spoken the word of God, considering the outcome of their conduct. Proverbs 22:28 warns against removing the ancient landmarks set by our fathers.

When faced with the multitude of faithful confessions and individual Christian theologians who have all affirmed the fundamental orthodox teachings of the church, it is evident that denying or disregarding the coherence and consistency built over centuries of doctrinal belief requires considerable arrogance, to say the least.

Hyper-preterists assert that it is only through their recent development of eschatological interpretation that believers have finally unraveled the supposed errors in the church's historic creeds, liberating Christians from doctrines that have remained undisputed in the body of Christ for centuries. According to them, only now can these teachings about the resurrection, Christ's return, the final judgment, and the culmination of history be truly understood.

This perspective places individuals at the forefront of determining doctrinal orthodoxy. Instead of the church being "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), this form of individualistic authority, which may explain why many Hyper-preterists are not members of the visible church of Jesus Christ, promotes the autonomy of the individual and diminishes the authority that Christ has bestowed upon the church. As Proverbs 14:12 warns, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."

The Lack of an Eschatological Council

The second concern related to Hyper-preterism involves the assertion that there has never been a council specifically addressing eschatology. According to this perspective, it is argued that it is now necessary to assemble a council to address this issue. Some proponents of this idea point to Dr. Gordon Clark and Louis Berkhof as theologians who supported the notion of convening such a council. However, in reality, neither Clark nor Berkhof advocated for convening a council to address eschatology. Instead, their position was that a council or assembly should have been called to establish which millennial view aligns with Biblical teachings more clearly. Gordon Clark expressed this viewpoint in his writings:

The [Westminster] Confession has very little to say on Christ’s return. Its last chapter gives a relatively full account of the judgment, but only in the last few phrases of section 3 is Christ’s return mentioned at all. Yet it would seem that there is more material in the New Testament on this subject… Historically the lack of balance is understandable; but theologically it is unfortunate. Because the struggle with Rome centered on justification by faith and the sole authority of the Bible, the order of events concomitant with the Second Advent was not a matter of discussion… For the last hundred years, however, the details of eschatology have evoked a great deal of interest.³

Clark focused on the question of whether an individual should subscribe to a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective in eschatology. In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Clark affirmed the shared distinctives among all these millennial views, including (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history.

Louis Berkhof expressed the same concern in his Systematic Theology:

Speaking generally, it may be said that Christianity never forgot the glorious predictions respecting its future and the future of the individual Christian. Neither the individual Christian nor the church could avoid thinking about these and finding comfort in them. Sometimes, however, the church, borne down with cares of life, or entangled in its pleasures, thought little of the future. Moreover, it happened repeatedly that at one time it would think more of this, and at another time, more of that particular element of its future hope. In days of defection the Christian hope sometimes grew dim and uncertain, but it never died out altogether. At the same time it must be said that there has never been a period in the history of the Christian church, in which eschatology was the center of Christian thought. The other loci of Dogmatics have each had their time of special development, but this cannot be said of eschatology.

The Reformation adopted what the early church taught respecting the return of Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, and eternal life, and brushed aside the crass form of Chiliasm which appeared in the Anabaptist sects… It can hardly be said that the Reformation did much for the development of eschatology.⁴

Berkhof further affirmed (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history. Like Clark, Berkhof expressed regret that the church had made minimal efforts to resolve the question of which millennial view aligns most closely with Biblical teachings and the specifics of the end times.

Interestingly, a question was posed in a conversation with a Hyper-preterist: "If we were to convene an assembly or council today, would you accept its findings?" The response was revealing: "Most likely not!" Hyper-preterists recognize that the Christian church would affirm the four eschatological doctrines they reject. None of the Christian church councils in history have supported the views embraced by Hyper-preterists.

Hyper-preterism and the Charge of Heresy

A key issue in the Hyper-preterist controversy revolves around the accusation of heresy. The question of whether Hyper-preterists can be classified as heretics requires careful consideration. Often, the charge of heresy has been applied indiscriminately. Technically, theological disputes have four primary classifications regarding "false doctrine." The first category is "errant theology," signifying a perspective that deviates from a particular church or denomination's accepted (orthodox) teachings. Hyper-preterism falls clearly into the realm of errant theology. The second category is "heresy," denoting a teaching that advocates a doctrine contrary to an accepted creedal position. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism is deemed "heretical." Samuel Frost⁵, once a well-educated spokesperson for the Hyper-preterist movement, acknowledged this classification:

Preterism, the word I chose to call this doctrine and movement, is a risky venture. Two millennia of church tradition on the Second Coming of Christ is now seen as an error. This was not a minor theological dispute, either. The Second Coming of Christ was and is a major tenet of Christianity…. Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of A.D. 66-70. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and the Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years. This is a contradiction to Christian orthodoxy and its Creeds, Councils and all the Reformed, Baptist, and Methodist Standards… It advocates as it starting point that Jesus returned in that "generation" and that "all things" were fulfilled in that generation… This has caused, to use another postmodern term, a "paradigm shift" in our understanding of eschatology… The point I want to make is that prior to our shift to preterism, were we in error when we proclaimed the Second Coming of Christ as yet future? Were we in error when we stated that God, the Bible and the Spirit teaches that "He shall come again?" Were we in error when we took, what we now believe to be a false hope [authors note: he means Christ coming again at the end of time], this view and said that "this is what God says: He shall come again!"? We now believe that God does not "say" that. The Bible does not teach that… I am a [hyper] preterist. I believe in doctrinal changes. I believe in paradigm shifts. I believe in following the truth against the Majority. I am a "heretic" according to the Council of Nicea and the Westminster Confession of Faith. So be it.⁶

Reflecting on Mr. Frost's concise expression in the previous quote is worthwhile. Firstly, he acknowledged that Hyper-preterism is a "risky venture," fully aware that he embraced a doctrine that has been condemned by the church over the course of its 2000-year history. What was consistently upheld as a crucial element of the Christian faith was being contradicted and dismissed as a valid doctrine of Scripture. Secondly, he underscored that this denial was not a minor theological matter but rather a rejection of the Second Coming of Christ, which he recognized as "a major tenet of Christianity." Thirdly, what was being denied encompassed the Second Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment expected at the end of the age. He admitted that this contradicted Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the Christian church's councils, creeds, and confessional standards. Fifthly, he acknowledged the gravity of this denial and understood that considering the church's doctrine on eschatological matters, the historical Christian church is justified in labeling Hyper-preterists as "heretics." Sixthly, this denial was rooted in a paradigm shift in hermeneutical interpretation. Lastly, he concluded by openly admitting to being a "heretic" according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and he embraced the term "heretic" as a badge of honor when he said, "so be it."

Such assertions should be deeply troubling to any professing Christian. When a self-proclaimed believer openly acknowledges being a "heretic" and willingly accepts the consequences of adhering to an unorthodox doctrine without reservation, it raises questions about the authenticity of their profession of faith. In actuality, not only was Mr. Frost a heretic according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, but also of the Apostles’ Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The latter Creed begins by stating: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal Christian] faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." The Creed concludes with the affirmation: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." Concerning the view of the second advent of Christ, the Athanasian Creed asserts: "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." Perhaps the reason Mr. Frost omitted mentioning the Athanasian Creed when highlighting his divergence from historical Christianity is that he would then be admitting not just to being a "heretic" but a "damnable heretic."

The third classification is "damnable heresy." Damnable heresy denotes a belief so contrary to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, such as justification by works, that persisting in such a belief would lead to damnation. The fourth category is "apostasy," defined as a false teaching added to the essentials of the Christian faith to the extent that it misguides and alters these essential doctrines. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism can be considered apostate.

Concluding Remarks

By rejecting the four fundamental eschatological tenets of the Christian faith—namely, the physical resurrection of the body, the physical return of Christ, the final judgment, and the end of history—Hyper-preterism has embraced a new form of Gnosticism. This Gnosticism introduces a novel paradigm into its hermeneutical system, with its eschatological dogma serving as a template to reshape the entirety of its theological teachings. In this errant framework, every aspect of thought is governed by its eschatological perspective, asserting that the second and sole coming of Jesus Christ occurred in A.D. 70. This belief necessitates the redefinition or recasting of other major doctrines, leading further away from orthodox teachings.

An instance of this is seen in Hyper-preterists rejecting the concept of "original sin" as the cause of Adam's physical death, contending that the consequences of the "fall of man" were solely spiritual, not physical. Some Hyper-preterists go further to argue that a visible church is no longer necessary. If there's no need for a visible church, the role of church officers (preachers/teachers) becomes obsolete, as do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. This perspective arises from believing that Christ's fulfillment occurred in A.D. 70, rendering everything complete. Additionally, certain Hyper-preterists deny the ongoing relevance of the Law of God (the Ten Commandments) and, in the realm of soteriology, adopt a form of universalism. These trends within the Hyper-preterist movement are considered highly perilous and may border on the classification of "damnable heresy."

The Hyper-preterist movement is currently experiencing internal divisions, aligning itself with various theological factions such as liberalism, libertarianism, and universalism. However, the crucial question that must be raised concerning the resurrection motif, as upheld by orthodox Christian teaching, pertains to its profound soteriological implications. Hyper-preterism, with its potential to diminish the completed work of Christ in all its eschatological provisions, poses a serious threat to Christianity at its core. Any flaw in this particular doctrine, whether through the subtraction from the doctrinal formula or the amalgamation of diverse theoretical concepts, has severe consequences. It should be regarded as a dangerous 'errant, heretical, and apostate theology,' and in some variations, even damnable. Furthermore, by the very nature of its teachings, Hyper-preterism is considered unorthodox according to the consistent interpretation of Scripture by the Church throughout its history—a fact that the Hyper-preterist cannot deny. As Tertullian wrote: "Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing.”⁷

1. Westminster Assembly. 1851. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, Chapter I, VI

2. Ibid., Chapter I, X

3. Gordon H. Clark, What Do  Presbyterians Believe? (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2001), 268.

4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 662-663.

5. Mr. Frost has since left this heretical movement and reclaimed the historic Christian faith and practice.

6. Observations, pgs. 1-11, old RCM Website.

7. Tertullian. 1885. “The Prescription against Heretics.” In Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, translated by Peter Holmes, 3:261. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.