Roderick Edwards: Employing Words but Denying their Meaning

Still Teaching Heresy after Leaving Heresy

When I left hyper-preterism in Dec. 2010 after teaching it for seven years, one of my biggest criticisms was how hyper-preterists employ words that have a rich, historical, theological meaning to give people the sense that their doctrine is not that far off; yet, what they mean by these words conflicts with what Christianity has taught since the beginning. Hyper-preterists (aka full-preterists) will tell you, for example, that they, too, embrace doctrines like the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the continual incarnation of Jesus Christ. This all sounds good on the surface. After all, isn't that what orthodox Christianity teaches? But ask a hyper-preterist to go beyond the mere words and define what he means by those words. For example, what exactly does the "second coming of Christ" look like for a hyper-preterist? It will not take long before one realizes that virtually everything they claim to have in common with Christianity is not Christianity.

Some will tell us that the "second coming" is when Jesus "spiritually" came back in AD70. Some will say that the "resurrection of the body" is when the metaphorical body of Old Covenant Jews transitioned from the Old Covenant administration to the New from AD30 to AD70. Others will tell you that the resurrection body has nothing to do with one's current flesh body but is an entirely new "body" given to a person once they die. And what about the continual incarnation of Jesus? Some argue that the "body of Jesus" is represented in the physical bodies of the elect, and as for Jesus himself, He no longer has the flesh body in which he died and was resurrected. Jesus, we are told, ditched his flesh during his ascension.

The more you dig, the more you realize that hyper-preterism has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity. It is a heresy trying to piggyback off Christianity by borrowing her words to make headway. But this is nothing new for the Christian Church. Francis Turretin speaks to this tactic in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology with a section on the differences between essential vs. non-essential doctrines. In Article XXII of this section, Turretin makes this vital distinction between adhering to "words" vs. adhering to the "sense," or meaning, of words. He also gives historical examples of heretics adhering to mere words and denying their true meaning:

…the Symbol {Apostles' Creed} is not to be considered only with regard to the words, but as to the sense (because, as Hilary says, "The Scriptures do not consist in the reading but in the understanding," Ad Constantium Augustum, II,9 [PL 10.570]; and "fundamentals are not found in the words but in the sense," as Jerome says). Therefore, although heretics may say that they receive the Symbol, yet they do not because they reject its true and genuine sense. So Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius and other anti-Trinitarians formerly professed (to no purpose) in the words of the Symbol their faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while they endeavored to overthrow this very doctrine not by secret attacks, but by open warfare. The Socinians of our day and their disciples are doing this. In vain do the papists profess their belief in it, who corrupt the meaning of the various articles concerning the sufferings and death of Christ, his descent to hell, the catholic church, the remission of sins and the like.

~ Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1, pg. 53.

As my understanding of the Bible grew, I began to see how Scripture defined these doctrines. And since hyper-preterism was not in line with Scripture's meaning, I ditched hyper-preterism and came to see that historic, orthodox Christianity had it right all along. 

So what does all this have to do with Roderick Edwards?

I met Roderick online in 2003 during my hyper-preterist days, who was a seasoned adherent by that time. He and Sam Frost, whom I had joined up with in St. Petersburg, FL, were in the middle of a written debate over the legitimacy of churches and officers. Roderick argued that there was no longer any use for them since Jesus had returned. Looking back, he took a more consistent hyper-preterist position. However, he spent more time attacking the man than the argument's substance, so it was difficult to take him seriously. When he first heard about me, a complete stranger, moving to another state to join the 'church' in St. Pete, his first words were that I joined because I was too lazy to study the Bible. I knew then and there that I wanted little to nothing to do with him.

Sam was more tolerant and ecumenical than me. Over the years, Sam tried to work with him on various projects, but things never panned out. Roderick would ruin it by writing personal hit pieces against those he disagreed with. It got so bad that I refused to allow interaction or mention of him on our RCM website and Sovereign Grace Preterism network, which upset him even more.

In 2007, four weeks after a failed attempt to insert himself into our live podcast show, he left hyper-preterism with nobody else wanting to work with him. I knew then that Roderick did not go for solid, doctrinal reasons but left for personal ones. Early on, he said he did not leave preterism, but preterism left him. At first, Roderick never would explain to anyone what he believed. After burning more bridges with Dr. Talbot and Dee Dee Warren and company, he ran off and created the "UnPreterist" blog to undo everything and explain why he left, but all he would write about is how so-and-so is evil and how so-and-so is also evil because they support the first so-and-so. It was the same 'ole personal baloney.

Eventually, he revealed his beliefs, although he never got into depth. Nor did he believe in debating hyper-preterists with a Bible. He argued that it was useless to discuss Scripture with hyper-preterists because they would twist the Bible to get out of any corner:

If they will not listen to nearly 2000 years of Christians, why do you think they care to listen to you? (Proverbs 26:4-5) They only want you to "discuss Scripture" (sometimes they call it being "exegetical") with them so that they can employ their tactic of redefining every theological term they can & force you to acquiesce to the redefinitions. (Source)

He also argued that the root problem with hyper-preterists is that they deny the sovereignty of God over the church and His leading of the church into four essential eschatological teachings. That God preserved these four essential eschatological teachings (future return of Christ, resurrection, end of sin, and final judgment) across all denominations and that hyper-preterists deny these teachings became Roderick's most oft-repeated argument as to why hyper-preterists are wrong. (Ironically, Roderick is now defending Gary DeMar for rejecting the creeds on these points and appealing to the Bible alone because my name was on a letter asking DeMar for clarity; once again proving that Roderick doesn’t operate on principle but personal vendettas.)

By mid-2011, Sam left hyper-preterism around five months after I departed. Some had thought that Sam and I would join up with our old nemesis in a united front against hyper-preterism, but there was no way I would do that. My problems with hyper-preterism did not change my problems with Roderick. Furthermore, I was not convinced that he could produce a positive response to hyper-preterism; he could point out inconsistencies but not articulate an alternative view. Even his four-doctrines argument was vague. He never would define what these four doctrines meant. So as a hyper-preterist or not, I wanted nothing to do with him. And when Roderick saw all the noise made over Sam's departure (rightly so because Sam was a leader among leaders in the movement), Roderick became jealous. He started to dismiss Sam's departure, making the case that Sam had a hidden agenda. The jealousy boiled over when American Vision published a small book by Sam entitled "Why I Left Full Preterism." Roderick wrote a response entitled, "Why I Left Full Preterism Before Sam Frost" (no jealousy there…right?), and the four-essential-doctrines argument came up again:

After years of chiding me about pointing out that ALL of historical Christianity has agreed 100% on the 4 eschatological views, Frost opens his books with this very argument.

"that they all agree on four points:

1. Christ will return bodily . . .

2. at the end of time and history . . .

3. and raise our bodies . . .

4. and bring full judgment to all..

…Regardless, the four things above unify all of these views, even if they are at a war of words with each other over the details. My first point is this: Christian history is unified on these essential matters." (pg 1)

Really??? So, Sam, you spent years denying this every time I said it, and here you are, making your case on it and charging people $14.95 for it none the less. Again, THIS is why this man is a fraud. There is a reason lots of Full Preterists call Frost "The Librarian", because he does not come up with anything from his own rational conclusions but instead steals them from other people, from something he has read in his library. (Source)

And earlier in that post, Roderick says this: (Keep in mind that I am one of those "cronies" he writes about.)

Well, the TRUTH is that while Frost was a Full Preterist; and I was no longer one, he would spend lots of time lambasting me for using the "historical" argument against him. To this day there has been no apology, no humility from Frost and his cronies. Not one of them has said, "You know Roderick, we're sorry — you were right all those years and we were just too arrogant to admit it". I suspect no apology is forthcoming because while Frost and his cronies left the lay-led form of Full Preterism, they have not left their egos. Further, while Frost was still a Full Preterist, he would claim that he was still holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)…with only slight modification of course, perhaps no more than the Baptist's modify it to the 1689 Baptist Confession. So, the idea that Frost is going to school people in the proper understanding of historical Christianity and the creeds is laughable but sad that Gentry would tell people Frost is going to do so. The only thing Frost and his fellows do is corrode the confessions and creeds and make them suspect.

And now, we get to the heart of this post. Sam, myself, and others have finally been vindicated. A post by Roderick has confirmed what I had thought all along, why I never bought into his vague four-doctrines-argument and why he still will never get an "apology" from me.

Roderick posted a written interview that he did with hyper-preterist Corey Shultz. In that interview, his vague four-doctrines argument comes up again:

Corey Shultz: Do you currently believe the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment happened already or does it lie in our future?

Roderick Edwards: There are 4 things all historic Christians hold, no matter whatever differences or denomination —

1) Jesus is yet to return/come back.

2) The collective resurrection is yet to be.

3) The collective Judgment of the wicked and righteous is yet to be.

4) The end of sin/culmination of God's plan is yet to be.

So yes, as an historic or so-called orthodox Christian, I believe those things. What form they take can be argued. (Source)

Recall what I have said above about employing words but changing meaning because you are about to see it happen with this so-called "UnPreterist." Your first clue that something is up is when he describes the resurrection as the "collective resurrection." What happened to the word "body"? In case you missed it – if you look at the quote from Sam's book that Roderick provided (claiming that was his argument), you will notice that Sam said that God will "raise our bodies." A "collective resurrection" does not necessarily entail a "bodily" one. Hyper-preterists will tell you they believe in a "collective resurrection." Sam and Roderick are not necessarily saying the same thing. Then there is the second red flag: he says, "What form they take can be argued." Hmm, really? Where is this going? And now the kicker:

Corey Shultz: I will conclude this interview with these final questions. What happens to you today if you died, and in the future, what will be raised from the dead? Also, what happens to an unbeliever today if they die?

Roderick Edwards: Interestingly enough, the Bible talks a lot about after physical life; be it potential hell/punishment/annihilation or potential reward/heaven/paradise. However, it is never very clear as to what actually happens. I know we have ideas of being in eternal bliss if we are destined for heaven. What is eternal life/life everlasting?

As Christians, we have been taught, in unison, that whatever happens to our bodies and soul, our spirits go to be with the Lord forever at physical death. I'd suspect that our soul is somewhat intact as well, since that contains our personalities. I know some people insist we must include that our bodies are raised physically, and perhaps God does do that. There are certainly several passages that seem to indicate that, and historically Christianity contains that within many of its creeds (btw, a creed is simply a statement of belief, so the moment even a preterist says what he/she believes, it becomes their "creed") As for what happens to unbelievers upon physical death; the Bible indicates either a continued punishment or a ceasing of the soul. I am still in flux whether non-Elect people ever have a spirit, as the Bible seems to indicate that the spirit becomes alive only at the moment of belief.

Can you believe this nonsense? When pondering whether our bodies will be raised - a belief Sam and I dogmatically affirm in unison with historic Christianity - Roderick says, "perhaps God does do that." Perhaps? Then he says that there are passages that "seem to indicate that…" Seem? 

Are you kidding me?

And if that wasn't enough, Roderick still doesn't know what to do with the whole soul vs. spirit issue, which the Reformers settled long ago. If you are unaware of the predominant view among the Reformers, I'll sum it up in one word: dichotomy. Soul and spirit are words the Bible uses to describe the same part of human nature.

In light of all the nonsense Roderick has said about Sam and me over the years, this is unbelievable; yet I am so glad to see it because we have officially confirmed from the man's lips what I have thought all along:

1. He doesn't know what to believe regarding these essential doctrines against the hyper-preterists. He never got into specifics when he "left" hyper-preterism because he can't.

2. His four-essentials-historic-doctrines argument fails because he doesn't embrace the historical doctrine. Christians have never taught that God *perhaps* and *seems* to suggest that He will raise our bodies. The resurrection of the body (flesh) is an essential, historic Christian doctrine. And the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that denying this doctrine is denying the Gospel. Neither has annihilation been a serious contender in Christianity.

3. All his claims that we "stole" his argument are null and void. Why? Because we believe what orthodox Christianity means by these words. Unlike Roderick, we have not merely latched onto the shell of words but embrace the historical meaning of these words, as expressed in orthodox creeds and confessions.

Friends, this is why it is essential to understand my initial point in this post. Mere words and labels are not enough. You have to define your terms. Defining words will not only protect you from heretics but from confused "ex-heretics" who, in reality, are still teaching heresy. Further, this demonstrates why it is not enough to point out inconsistencies in another person's view; you must be able to defend your position positively. Forsaking one heresy for another accomplishes nothing but prove that you are wishy-washy. And for Pete's sake, don't blast others who know what they believe when you can't defend the Truth yourself.

This is why I never got along with Roderick. This is why I never joined him after leaving hyper-preterism. And this is why I still will not take him seriously (among other reasons).