Post by Michael J Loomis on Feb 9, 2011 18:43:26 GMT -5
Please read this very carefully. Especially the end where I give my FINAL THOUGHTS and the three main reasons for my rejection of the views presented by Rivers of Eden.
This last week on February 4th, 2011, I posted a public apology to the teachers on AD70.NET and our listeners regarding my decision to allow on a gentleman that goes by the name Rivers of Eden to present his view on AD70.NET and subsequently post his disagreements on the podcast page located at www.thepodcast.org.
As many of you are aware there seems to be a little confusion over who gets to use the name Preterist and how the term is defined. Early on in my journey into preterism I discovered like many of you that there have been a very vocal few that accuse people like Don Preston, David Curtis, Ed Stevens, etc. of having gone beyond the original scope of the meaning of the term and are therefore Hyper-Preterists. And so I personally understood the term Hyper-Preterist as a more pejorative name for those among the Preterist movement that I think would better be termed Full-Preterists. Due to my own ignorance I didn’t actually know until January of 2010 that there actually was an actual position known as Hyper-Preterism that had gone beyond that which is held by teachers like Don Preston, William Bell, Ed Stevens and David Curtis.
My first experience with someone that does hold the view of Hyper-Preterism was a gentleman that I had been broadcasting with when I initially launched AD70.NET. When I had initially met this gentleman he did actually refer to himself as a Hyper-Preterist. I however thought that he was just embracing the pejorative term. I didn’t know that there were people that held to anything beyond what the previously mentioned teachers believed and taught. And so after about 2 months of broadcasting with him I found out that he believed that the Bible in no way speaks of an afterlife of any kind but that life beyond death was living beyond the judgment of AD70 because of faith and obedience to the words of Jesus to flee to the hills of Judea when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. In other words…Life beyond that old covenant ministration of death. Not life in Heaven after we breath our last breath.
His position(as I understand it) though differs from that of Rivers of Eden in that he doesn’t believe that salvation was only for the twelve tribes of Israel. His view is that salvation was initially delivered to the children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob but that it was also extended to those outside that line in the first century as branches grafted in. However, I still couldn’t agree with his position that the Bible speaks nothing of life after physical death. And so ultimately I decided that I couldn’t continue hitching my cart to that horse. Ultimately he would say that there may very well be an afterlife. He just doesn’t believe that the Bible teaches it. He and I are still friends and I have the utmost respect for him as a person of faith. For now he and I will just have to disagree agreeably.
Moving forward approximately 9 months, I had received a very friendly and complementary email from a gentleman named Rivers of Eden that I had remembered from the website www.planetpreterist.com. At that time as many of you know I had been really wrestling with the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions as I was studying them carefully to see if they are viable or even complementary positions to fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
On a side note my personal position regarding the study of positions I’m unsure of or disagree with is not one where I read or listen to a presentation from someone that disagrees with said position, but to go directly to the horses mouth and ask those who hold those views why they believe what they do.
And so as I was considering both the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions I started out by contacting Gary Amirault, who some of you might know from the website www.tentmaker.org. I initially contacted Gary by email on September 13th, 2010. He graciously called me back and we began dialoging about the Universalist position as he understood it. I asked him about his views and what end-times position he thought best fit within the Universalist paradigm. I wasn’t surprised that he believed that a Preterist understanding fit the best. However I was somewhat surprised to find out that the Universalists also varied quite widely on how to understand the end-times passages. I guess I just thought there would be a higher percentage of Preterists within the Universalist community.
It’s been 5 months now since I started dialoging with Gary Amirault about his faith and why he came to the position that he did. We probably talk once or twice a month, and most of the time now it’s just a time of fellowship and sharing of ideas related to our respective ministries and websites. Even though I don’t agree with his position I still consider him a great friend and resource when it comes to understanding the Universal Reconciliation position.
On September 24th, just 10 days after I had contacted Gary Amirault about Universalism, I was contacted by Rivers of Eden. He contacted me because he had heard me say on air that I was wanting to bring people on from all over the preterist world from all of the different preterist perspectives to present their positions.
As I have mentioned previously on air and in writing, I had been wrestling with the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions as possible next steps in my journey to better understand the scriptures. After having spent many hours on the phone with Gary Amirault I was still unconvinced of Universal Reconciliation. He may ultimately be right, and I’m not going to be bitter if I get to Heaven and find out that everyone is there, but my conscience still won’t let me go there.
Like I mentioned above, Rivers of Eden had contacted me just 10 days after I had begun dialoging with Gary about the Universalist position. I thought it was actually rather convenient in that I wouldn’t have to go searching for someone else that holds to a Hyper-Preterist position. I had only met one other Hyper-Preterist and wasn’t convinced of the position from his presentation of it. And so I began dialoging with Rivers of Eden.
Right off the bat I let Rivers know that I was very close to embracing the Hyper-Preterist position. I had even mentioned many times on air even that I was probably a fuller preterist than most would be comfortable with.
When he initially made contact with me one of the first things I thought was kind of strange is that he used a pseudonym even in personal interactions. I asked him why and he told me that he has a job that prohibits him from using his real name. Of course curiosity was killing the cat and so I dug for more public information on him. I found out his name but will not divulge it here in case he was being completely forthright with me and he actually does have a job where he could suffer loss or injury should that information be made public. If I remember correctly he said that the name he has now isn’t even the same one he had before September 11, 2001. So even if you too find his name, I guess it really doesn’t matter because it has changed.
It’s kind of dizzying if you ask me. He’s signed correspondences that I’ve seen with 3 different names to date. Anyhow…Back to the story.
So we spent many hours on the phone with him and I was very impressed with his knowledge of the Bible. I also started looking for anything else that he had written over the years but could only find two sources. Planet Preterist and an Angelfire site called Bible Studies and Preterist Page.
And so as I’ve mentioned previously I personally came very close to embracing this position. The following is a quote of myself from a response I made over on www.thepodcast.org regarding the point that I had come to and what my ultimate conclusion was after studying the view rather intensely for two months.
I didn’t just flirt with it…I quite literally put it on to see if it would fit. I was even beginning to tell people that I was sure it was right. However…Until I sat through both of these two hour presentations that were argued very well mind you that I decided to ultimately reject it. Seriously…I was ready to call myself a Hyper-Preterist. Everything fit in the box very well. No more questions unanswered.
But then the questions began to arise as I started considering the implications of this position.
For God so loved the world(of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever(of that seed that) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Really?
And then there is the question of what the universal Church has been doing for the last 2000 years. Have we been worshiping a god that has no interest outside the tribes of Israel?
And if so…Then to what end?
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that this view reduces YHWH to a tribal god with no interest in the affairs of humanity outside the genealogy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that liked the smell of grilled red heifer.
If one wants to believe that the original scope of God’s dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:28 that was given to Adam was limited to the borders of Israel then they are more than welcome.
If the New Jerusalem was limited to the 12 tribes then there is no point in the gates not being shut at all. Maybe I’m over-exercising logic here…But if it was limited to them then the gates would be shut once it was filled.
I think ROE has made his point exceedingly clear. 4 hours worth. I personally cannot in good conscience continue giving voice to this view that I and many other believe reduce not only Christianity but also 2000 years of history down to the love story of a tribal god and his chosen bride.
If anyone wants to pursue HP that is fine. But it scared the hell out of me.
Seriously…Consider the implications of HP.
If it’s true…No matter how much good has come from 2000 years of Church history…It’s all been based on a false premise.
ROE is a good friend. I’ve learned a lot from him. However…I think he has gone too far.
I had decided that the view presented by Rivers of Eden was not something I could embrace or even allow to be promoted through AD70.NET. Yet I felt that his presentations would be of value for many years to come for those who want to better understand the position.
Then there was the issue of my allowing him to continually post his disagreements on www.thepodcast.org, on virtually every program posted minus a short time when he was away for work.
Now I’m the last person to feel threatened by someones written responses on a website regarding a disagreement over scripture. And honestly, I though it would make for some good conversation. You know…Iron sharpening iron. However, as time went on less and less people were responding to him and Rivers of Eden was from time to time becoming more hostile in his responses. I had to ask him once or twice to tone down a little and he did.
Then last week I began receiving a number of complaints from listeners questioning me as to why I would allow Rivers of Eden to continually post his disagreements with virtually every broadcast on the podcast page. In other words people weren’t even wanting to go to the podcast page anymore because they didn’t want to keep seeing the posted disagreements.
Honestly, I was just hoping that he would just stop posting if no one was responding. But that was just not the case.
I carefully considered what I should do and even sought out council from a number of teachers within the movement as to what course of action should be taken. Mainly from those that have been around since the early 1990′s that used to have personal face to face interaction with him.
And so the decision was made to simply remove the two broadcasts and Rivers of Eden’s ability to post his continual disagreements. And so I contacted Rivers and let him know the decision that was made and he affirmed also that he would like for me to remove the podcasts and his responses.
—- FINAL THOUGHTS —-
Rivers of Eden disagrees with my estimation of his position being Anti-Christian and no different than atheism. He feels that I’ve misrepresented him. And whether you agree with me or not I feel that I now need fair and explain why I labeled Rivers of Eden’s individual position Anti-Christian.
1. Charge of Atheism
The definition for Atheism from Wikipedia is as follows – The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.
Now maybe I’m too simple minded but by Rivers of Eden’s own admission his position is Atheism or Atheistic. In that if Rivers of Eden is correct then everyone other than God’s elect(The Whole house of Israel) which ended in AD70 are…“Without god.”
2. Charge of Anti-Christian
A couple of months ago I sent Rivers of Eden an email asking him about who Jesus was. The following was my question to him.
By the way…I don’t remember whether we covered this or not but I’ve heard it somewhere and just wanted to get it from the horses mouth. So I can correct or affirm if the question comes up again.
Re: diety of Christ. Just a man? Divine in any way?
I really hate seeing people misrepresented. Thanks pally!!!
Mike
Rivers’ Response:
Hi Mike,
Jesus was a man of “flesh and blood” (Hebrews 2:14-16) who was conceived when God’s “holy spirit overshadowed Mary” and thus made him “the son of God” (Luke 1:35). Of course, God loved His son and gave him “the spirit without measure” and “all things” (John 3:34-36).
I don’t believe any of the post-apostolic doctrine about the “Trinity” or the “hypostatic union” since it is not found in scripture.
ROE
————————
And so as I look back over the last few months I realize that I never should have let this go on as long as I did. I receive so many emails that some of them get buried. Had I realized that Rivers of Eden believed that Jesus was just a man that simply happened to received the Holy Spirit without measure, I wouldn’t have let him on anymore than I would ever let a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness on…No matter how preterist they might be.
And unless I’m mistaken the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon’s are considered cults because of their belief of Jesus only having been a man.
Finally…I don’t know what to call him…
He’s a man of many names. He’s responded to me with the names, Rivers of Eden, Chris and Bob. And as far as I’m concerned…If someone is not willing to put their name on what they believe then AD70.NET will not endorse it.
I used a pseudonym for many years online. “Psychohmike.” However when I began promoting the Preterist view officially, I stopped using it and began using the name on my birth certificate.
And so this is why I ultimately rejected Hyper-Preterism. But more specifically, the views held by Rivers of Eden.
God Bless you all as you continue your journey in search of the truth.
Michael J Loomis
This last week on February 4th, 2011, I posted a public apology to the teachers on AD70.NET and our listeners regarding my decision to allow on a gentleman that goes by the name Rivers of Eden to present his view on AD70.NET and subsequently post his disagreements on the podcast page located at www.thepodcast.org.
As many of you are aware there seems to be a little confusion over who gets to use the name Preterist and how the term is defined. Early on in my journey into preterism I discovered like many of you that there have been a very vocal few that accuse people like Don Preston, David Curtis, Ed Stevens, etc. of having gone beyond the original scope of the meaning of the term and are therefore Hyper-Preterists. And so I personally understood the term Hyper-Preterist as a more pejorative name for those among the Preterist movement that I think would better be termed Full-Preterists. Due to my own ignorance I didn’t actually know until January of 2010 that there actually was an actual position known as Hyper-Preterism that had gone beyond that which is held by teachers like Don Preston, William Bell, Ed Stevens and David Curtis.
My first experience with someone that does hold the view of Hyper-Preterism was a gentleman that I had been broadcasting with when I initially launched AD70.NET. When I had initially met this gentleman he did actually refer to himself as a Hyper-Preterist. I however thought that he was just embracing the pejorative term. I didn’t know that there were people that held to anything beyond what the previously mentioned teachers believed and taught. And so after about 2 months of broadcasting with him I found out that he believed that the Bible in no way speaks of an afterlife of any kind but that life beyond death was living beyond the judgment of AD70 because of faith and obedience to the words of Jesus to flee to the hills of Judea when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. In other words…Life beyond that old covenant ministration of death. Not life in Heaven after we breath our last breath.
His position(as I understand it) though differs from that of Rivers of Eden in that he doesn’t believe that salvation was only for the twelve tribes of Israel. His view is that salvation was initially delivered to the children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob but that it was also extended to those outside that line in the first century as branches grafted in. However, I still couldn’t agree with his position that the Bible speaks nothing of life after physical death. And so ultimately I decided that I couldn’t continue hitching my cart to that horse. Ultimately he would say that there may very well be an afterlife. He just doesn’t believe that the Bible teaches it. He and I are still friends and I have the utmost respect for him as a person of faith. For now he and I will just have to disagree agreeably.
Moving forward approximately 9 months, I had received a very friendly and complementary email from a gentleman named Rivers of Eden that I had remembered from the website www.planetpreterist.com. At that time as many of you know I had been really wrestling with the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions as I was studying them carefully to see if they are viable or even complementary positions to fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
On a side note my personal position regarding the study of positions I’m unsure of or disagree with is not one where I read or listen to a presentation from someone that disagrees with said position, but to go directly to the horses mouth and ask those who hold those views why they believe what they do.
And so as I was considering both the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions I started out by contacting Gary Amirault, who some of you might know from the website www.tentmaker.org. I initially contacted Gary by email on September 13th, 2010. He graciously called me back and we began dialoging about the Universalist position as he understood it. I asked him about his views and what end-times position he thought best fit within the Universalist paradigm. I wasn’t surprised that he believed that a Preterist understanding fit the best. However I was somewhat surprised to find out that the Universalists also varied quite widely on how to understand the end-times passages. I guess I just thought there would be a higher percentage of Preterists within the Universalist community.
It’s been 5 months now since I started dialoging with Gary Amirault about his faith and why he came to the position that he did. We probably talk once or twice a month, and most of the time now it’s just a time of fellowship and sharing of ideas related to our respective ministries and websites. Even though I don’t agree with his position I still consider him a great friend and resource when it comes to understanding the Universal Reconciliation position.
On September 24th, just 10 days after I had contacted Gary Amirault about Universalism, I was contacted by Rivers of Eden. He contacted me because he had heard me say on air that I was wanting to bring people on from all over the preterist world from all of the different preterist perspectives to present their positions.
As I have mentioned previously on air and in writing, I had been wrestling with the Hyper-Preterist and Universalist positions as possible next steps in my journey to better understand the scriptures. After having spent many hours on the phone with Gary Amirault I was still unconvinced of Universal Reconciliation. He may ultimately be right, and I’m not going to be bitter if I get to Heaven and find out that everyone is there, but my conscience still won’t let me go there.
Like I mentioned above, Rivers of Eden had contacted me just 10 days after I had begun dialoging with Gary about the Universalist position. I thought it was actually rather convenient in that I wouldn’t have to go searching for someone else that holds to a Hyper-Preterist position. I had only met one other Hyper-Preterist and wasn’t convinced of the position from his presentation of it. And so I began dialoging with Rivers of Eden.
Right off the bat I let Rivers know that I was very close to embracing the Hyper-Preterist position. I had even mentioned many times on air even that I was probably a fuller preterist than most would be comfortable with.
When he initially made contact with me one of the first things I thought was kind of strange is that he used a pseudonym even in personal interactions. I asked him why and he told me that he has a job that prohibits him from using his real name. Of course curiosity was killing the cat and so I dug for more public information on him. I found out his name but will not divulge it here in case he was being completely forthright with me and he actually does have a job where he could suffer loss or injury should that information be made public. If I remember correctly he said that the name he has now isn’t even the same one he had before September 11, 2001. So even if you too find his name, I guess it really doesn’t matter because it has changed.
It’s kind of dizzying if you ask me. He’s signed correspondences that I’ve seen with 3 different names to date. Anyhow…Back to the story.
So we spent many hours on the phone with him and I was very impressed with his knowledge of the Bible. I also started looking for anything else that he had written over the years but could only find two sources. Planet Preterist and an Angelfire site called Bible Studies and Preterist Page.
And so as I’ve mentioned previously I personally came very close to embracing this position. The following is a quote of myself from a response I made over on www.thepodcast.org regarding the point that I had come to and what my ultimate conclusion was after studying the view rather intensely for two months.
I didn’t just flirt with it…I quite literally put it on to see if it would fit. I was even beginning to tell people that I was sure it was right. However…Until I sat through both of these two hour presentations that were argued very well mind you that I decided to ultimately reject it. Seriously…I was ready to call myself a Hyper-Preterist. Everything fit in the box very well. No more questions unanswered.
But then the questions began to arise as I started considering the implications of this position.
For God so loved the world(of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever(of that seed that) believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Really?
And then there is the question of what the universal Church has been doing for the last 2000 years. Have we been worshiping a god that has no interest outside the tribes of Israel?
And if so…Then to what end?
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that this view reduces YHWH to a tribal god with no interest in the affairs of humanity outside the genealogy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that liked the smell of grilled red heifer.
If one wants to believe that the original scope of God’s dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:28 that was given to Adam was limited to the borders of Israel then they are more than welcome.
If the New Jerusalem was limited to the 12 tribes then there is no point in the gates not being shut at all. Maybe I’m over-exercising logic here…But if it was limited to them then the gates would be shut once it was filled.
I think ROE has made his point exceedingly clear. 4 hours worth. I personally cannot in good conscience continue giving voice to this view that I and many other believe reduce not only Christianity but also 2000 years of history down to the love story of a tribal god and his chosen bride.
If anyone wants to pursue HP that is fine. But it scared the hell out of me.
Seriously…Consider the implications of HP.
If it’s true…No matter how much good has come from 2000 years of Church history…It’s all been based on a false premise.
ROE is a good friend. I’ve learned a lot from him. However…I think he has gone too far.
I had decided that the view presented by Rivers of Eden was not something I could embrace or even allow to be promoted through AD70.NET. Yet I felt that his presentations would be of value for many years to come for those who want to better understand the position.
Then there was the issue of my allowing him to continually post his disagreements on www.thepodcast.org, on virtually every program posted minus a short time when he was away for work.
Now I’m the last person to feel threatened by someones written responses on a website regarding a disagreement over scripture. And honestly, I though it would make for some good conversation. You know…Iron sharpening iron. However, as time went on less and less people were responding to him and Rivers of Eden was from time to time becoming more hostile in his responses. I had to ask him once or twice to tone down a little and he did.
Then last week I began receiving a number of complaints from listeners questioning me as to why I would allow Rivers of Eden to continually post his disagreements with virtually every broadcast on the podcast page. In other words people weren’t even wanting to go to the podcast page anymore because they didn’t want to keep seeing the posted disagreements.
Honestly, I was just hoping that he would just stop posting if no one was responding. But that was just not the case.
I carefully considered what I should do and even sought out council from a number of teachers within the movement as to what course of action should be taken. Mainly from those that have been around since the early 1990′s that used to have personal face to face interaction with him.
And so the decision was made to simply remove the two broadcasts and Rivers of Eden’s ability to post his continual disagreements. And so I contacted Rivers and let him know the decision that was made and he affirmed also that he would like for me to remove the podcasts and his responses.
—- FINAL THOUGHTS —-
Rivers of Eden disagrees with my estimation of his position being Anti-Christian and no different than atheism. He feels that I’ve misrepresented him. And whether you agree with me or not I feel that I now need fair and explain why I labeled Rivers of Eden’s individual position Anti-Christian.
1. Charge of Atheism
The definition for Atheism from Wikipedia is as follows – The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god”, which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society.
Now maybe I’m too simple minded but by Rivers of Eden’s own admission his position is Atheism or Atheistic. In that if Rivers of Eden is correct then everyone other than God’s elect(The Whole house of Israel) which ended in AD70 are…“Without god.”
2. Charge of Anti-Christian
A couple of months ago I sent Rivers of Eden an email asking him about who Jesus was. The following was my question to him.
By the way…I don’t remember whether we covered this or not but I’ve heard it somewhere and just wanted to get it from the horses mouth. So I can correct or affirm if the question comes up again.
Re: diety of Christ. Just a man? Divine in any way?
I really hate seeing people misrepresented. Thanks pally!!!
Mike
Rivers’ Response:
Hi Mike,
Jesus was a man of “flesh and blood” (Hebrews 2:14-16) who was conceived when God’s “holy spirit overshadowed Mary” and thus made him “the son of God” (Luke 1:35). Of course, God loved His son and gave him “the spirit without measure” and “all things” (John 3:34-36).
I don’t believe any of the post-apostolic doctrine about the “Trinity” or the “hypostatic union” since it is not found in scripture.
ROE
————————
And so as I look back over the last few months I realize that I never should have let this go on as long as I did. I receive so many emails that some of them get buried. Had I realized that Rivers of Eden believed that Jesus was just a man that simply happened to received the Holy Spirit without measure, I wouldn’t have let him on anymore than I would ever let a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness on…No matter how preterist they might be.
And unless I’m mistaken the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon’s are considered cults because of their belief of Jesus only having been a man.
Finally…I don’t know what to call him…
He’s a man of many names. He’s responded to me with the names, Rivers of Eden, Chris and Bob. And as far as I’m concerned…If someone is not willing to put their name on what they believe then AD70.NET will not endorse it.I used a pseudonym for many years online. “Psychohmike.” However when I began promoting the Preterist view officially, I stopped using it and began using the name on my birth certificate.
And so this is why I ultimately rejected Hyper-Preterism. But more specifically, the views held by Rivers of Eden.
God Bless you all as you continue your journey in search of the truth.
Michael J Loomis
