"The hyper-preterist rejection of the traditional interpretation of Acts 1:9–11 has not led to anything even remotely approaching agreement on an alternative interpretation of these three verses. In fact, the wide range of conflicting, and often contradictory, attempts of hyper-preterists to explain this text in terms of their theology gives the reader the impression of an almost desperate ad hoc type of exegesis, a grasping at straws in order to find something, anything, to offer as an alternative reading. The clarity of what Luke tells us in Acts 1:9–11 is probably the reason why this text is either ignored or else passed over with relatively little detailed discussion in most hyper-preterist literature." (Acts 1:9-11 and the Hyper-Preterist Debate)

"An important point that must be kept in mind is observed by the great ninteenth-century Princeton theologian Samuel Miller. He noted that the most zealous opponents of creeds "have been those who help corrupt opinions".. Another heresy that has been widely promoted with the assistance of the modern Evangelical version of solo scriptura is hyper-preterism" (Full book available online at Google)   "while there are numerous internal squabbles over details, in general advocates of this doctrine insist that Jesus Christ returned in A.D.70 at the destruction of Jerusalem and that at that time sin and death were destroyed, the Adamic curse was lifted, Satan was cast into the lake of fire, the rapture and general resurrection occurred, the final judgment occurred, mourning and crying and pain were done away with, and the eternal state began." (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 242,243)

"I have addressed virtually all of Randall Otto’s arguments during the process of examining the text itself. Otto’s fundamental problem is his denial that Christ’s resurrection body was a physical body. As we noted above, he describes Christ’s resurrection body as "evanescent" and "vaporous" in quality and says that his post-resurrection existence was therefore generally invisible. It should go without saying that a denial of the bodily (i.e. physical) resurrection of Jesus is serious heresy and the hallmark of theological liberalism and skepticism. Scripture repeatedly affirms that the resurrection of Jesus was bodily (e.g. Luke 24:39–43). His tomb was empty because his body had been raised (Luke 24:3–7). In addition to basing his argument on an unbiblical doctrine of Christ’s resurrection body, Otto also attempts to marshal support from the use of certain Greek words. However, as we have noted, his assertions concerning the meaning of words such as epair o and blep o are simply false." (Acts 1:9-11 and the Hyper-Preterist Debate Page)

"The question, then, is simply this: Is it accurate to classify John Humphrey Noyes as an early proponent of hyper-preterism? After re-examining the evidence, I believe that the answer is yes, and I will seek to defend that answer in what follows." John Humphrey Noyes and Hyper-Preterism
 

WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A Reformed Response To Hyper-Preterism  By Keith A. Mathison, Editor 416 pages paperback Description: Multi-authored critique of the Preterist view. There are six other contributing authors besides Mathison, seven total. Here's the list of authors and their topics: 1. Kenneth Gentry (creedal problems of hyper-preterism) 2. Charles (Chuck) Hill (arguments from church history) 3. Richard Pratt (unfolding of biblical eschatology) 4. Keith Mathison (interpreting the time texts) 5. Simon Kistemaker (book of Revelation) 6. Douglas Wilson (sola scriptura, creeds, eccles. authority) 7. Robert Strimple (resurrection of the body) "Advocates of hyperpreterism have been active, even in academic settings, and have succeeded in persuading many of their eschatological views. "This volume," writes editor Keith A. Mathison, "is intended to offer an introductory critique of certain aspects of hyper-preterism." Answering such hyper-preterists as Max King, Timothy King, Ed Stevens, and John Noe. Hyper-preterists contend that "all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century." The contributors to this critique all confess that the second coming of Christ, the general resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment are future. These scholars introduce the basic issues and provide students with a tool to help them when they encounter hyper-preterism. Keith A. Mathison (Ph.D., Whitefield Theological Seminary) is director of curriculum development for Ligonier Ministries and the author of several books. [He is also associate editor of TableTalk magazine.]

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

 

Catholic International
"The Shape of Sola Scriptura is one of the most shortsighted, ill thought-out, and error-laden works I have read on this subject. In trying to defend an indefensible teaching, Mathison shows us once again the quicksand into which our Protestant brethren have sunk themselves and continue to sink. The more they struggle to escape, the more they expose their false premises and conclusions, and the more the Catholic position is vindicated. There is one thing to which I will agree in Mathison's opening paragraph -- yes, the "providence of God" was at work when Mathison wrote his book, for it gave the Catholic side one more opportunity to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that appears to have a mysterious, unrelenting grip on otherwise intelligent men.From the get-go, Mathison attempts to create a middle ground between conservative Evangelicals at the one extreme who believe in what he calls "solo scriptura" (NB: the "o" in "solo" which distinguishes it from the "a" in "sola"), and the Catholic Church at the other extreme, who believe in the equal authority of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium." A Catholic Response to the Shape of Sola Scriptura PDF Version

 

Kenneth J. Davies
The authoritative interpreter of Scripture is Scripture’s Author, the Holy Spirit, working corporately in the entire communion of saints, past and present, especially, but not exclusively in those with the ruling and teaching gifts, and when the entire communion of saints testifies to the same interpretation of Scripture, we can have some confidence that this interpretation is the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit, Who has been working in them.

What Keith was actually saying here, in a round-about way, was that we must allow the historic Creeds of Christianity determine our interpretation of Scripture. In an email response to David Green’s article, "Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds," 3 Mathison wrote:

I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green’s assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning. This would be the case if we shared the same creedal presuppositions, the framework for orthodoxy. ….This means we "creedalists" view this debate as a debate between Christians and heretics. That is why we have been forced to approach it in the same way the early Christians combated early heresies. The Scriptures simply do not belong to heretics, and any use of the Scriptures by heretics is a misuse of Scripture.4

Is there a time in history that we can point to when this type of agreement may be found?" (A Response to the False Witness of Keith Mathison)

Byron Snapp
"The solution to the current emphasis on one’s private interpretation of Scripture is not to flee evangelicalism for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, readers are challenged to recover a proper understanding of sola scriptura that is shaped by Scripture and supported by the early church.

This is a call that the evangelical church must heed. This is a book for Protestants and Catholics alike. The author shows the errors of radical reformers as well as the errors of Catholicism.

Readers can expect to have a greater appreciation for Scriptural authority and for the development of church creeds and confessional statements based on that authority. It also points to the importance of covenant communities — the organized church — and away from an individualized interpretation of Scripture. This individualism has led to church splits and unnecessary schisms within evangelicalism. Mathison realizes that this disarray will not be corrected overnight or even in our lifetime. He writes in the hope that his efforts will be used by God to recapture a Biblical understanding and practice of sola scriptura." (A Review)

 

---

 

Dr. Keith A. Mathison received his B.A. in Christianity and political science from Houston Baptist University and then studied at Dallas Theological Seminary for two years before completing his M.A. in theological studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He has also earned a Ph.D. in Christian thought from Whitefield Theological Seminary.

Dr. Mathison is director of curriculum development for Ligonier Ministries and an associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God, Postmillenialism: An Eschatology of Hope, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and The Shape of Sola Scriptura, as well as numerous articles and book reviews.

Most recently, Dr. Mathison served as the assistant editor of The Reformation Study Bible English Standard Version. He adapted the notes from the New King James Version to the new translation where necessary and helped to oversee the editing process.