Critical Review by:

theologyweb, (note: Jeff Vaughn banned from discussion because of his preterist beliefs)

 

If anyone is familiar with the name of the book, "Beyond Creation Science", and is NOT a hyper preterist, but an old earther, you will probably agree with me.

I am really disappointed that Hyper-preterism got to this argument before the Orthodox Preterists did. And I UNDERSTAND why DeMar did what he did by having the authors of the book on his show, but I nonetheless disagree with his decision. It took me a lot of research to finally figure out that the authors, Timothy Martin and Jeff Vaughn were hyper-preterists. Which is why I know a LITTLE BIT about the movement now. First I wondered why on there website there weren't ANY endorsements from guys like maybe Hannagraff, who is sympathetic to an Old Earth (though NOT Theistic Evolution), or maybe even Hugh Ross, an old earther, who is open minded about eschatology. All the endorsements came from guys like Walt Hibbard, and Don K. Preston. So I had to find out who the heck these guys were. and of course, they're all hypers. I finally found something online (this was before Dee Dee mentioned them in her blog) that said that Martin and Vaughn were both hypers, so I decided it would be best if I didn't get the book, because I didn't know orthodox Preterism well enough yet, and the book could be deleterious to my faith. And of course, DeMar didn't help because he made me think they were orthodox preterists. I'm pretty sure I listened to the entire interview and NOT ONCE did he say that he disagreed with them about the resurrection, which is a pretty darn big issue.

There is nothing unorthodox about thinking that the flood was local instead of global. There are biblical difficulties when you get into whether it was an anthropologically Universal flood, meaning it killed all people at the time, since they were still in Mesopotamia, or an anthropologically local flood. Of course, this position will probably be associated with Hyper Preterism now, because they got to the argument before us orthodox people did. I thought about getting the book, because it could define two views I hold in one book, but thought It'd be best to get two separate books that are both orthodox instead.. One view that the book does define that I DON'T hold is hyper-preterism. Is there anyone else who wishes Orthodox Preterists made the argument before the hypers did?

I suppose we could discuss how a local flood and Preterism work together from an orthodox viewpoint.

It frustrates me that I bet a lot of people like John Macarthur would probably feel vindicated through "Beyond Creation Science" because he could say "see, if you're gonna hold to preterism, look how it affects the rest of your theology", or "IF you're gonna hold to a local flood, look how it affects the rest of your theology", meaning a local flood leads to hyper-preterism, or a Preterism leads to hyper preterism, and a local flood. It really frusterates me. Hyper Preterism shouldn't be connected with a local flood one bit. : )
  

 

 
Beyond Creation Science
P.O. Box 99
Whitehall, MT 59759 406-287-2146
Email Us