Dee Dee Warren: On the Error of "Hymenaenism"

Dee Dee Warren: Of course "full preterists" do not believe that their mythology would correctly fall under the rubric of "Hymenaeanism'. If they did, they would not be "full preterists." The question for consideration here is whether or not it is correct for me to utilize the label of "Hymenaeanism" for their doctrine and identifying it as a potentially damnable heresy. In order to make that determination, it is necessary to look at the issue from the point of view of my presuppositions not the presuppositions of the "full preterists." This is where most discussions of this topic go way off base and basically amount to tautological nonsense that goes something like this:

THE HYMENAEAN : "You can't say that I am wrong based upon Paul's condemnation of Hymenaeus about the timing of the resurrection since Hymenaeus taught that it happened before 70AD. Since I am saying that it happened in 70AD, and it did, which is after Paul's condemnation, I am nothing like Hymenaeus. All Christians believe that there will come a day when the resurrection will be a past event. Will you all be Hymenaeans then??"

It is necessary to dissect this common argument.
It basically says this… "You cannot say that I am wrong if I am right, and I am telling you now that I am right, so you cannot say I am wrong." That is their argument boiled down to its nonsensical nutshell. It does not take into account that the person using the term "Hymenaean" does not accept the idea that the resurrection happened in AD70 but rather holds it to still be future to us.

So we have the outright condemnation of an ancient heretic who certainly denied the proper timing of the resurrection and may have also denied the proper nature of the resurrection as well. This is exactly what is going on with modern-day Hymenaeanism only they are certainly committing both errors while Hymenaeus may have been thoroughly condemned just making one of them! Thus, taking my presuppositions as true to determine if I am properly utilizing terms within my own framework, it is readily apparent that if I am right, then the term "Hymenaean" is more than accurate and the designation of such teaching as a "potentially damnable" heresy is downright generous.

What else does Paul say about this man?
He has rejected the faith and good conscience
He is a blasphemer
He incorrectly divides the word of truth
He profanely and idly babbles
He is ungodly
His message spreads like cancer in the body
He has strayed concerning the truth and overthrows the faith of others
He is not one of the Lord's own

These are not descriptions of a believer but of a condemned heretic. The only specific doctrinal error that is given is that he was teaching that the resurrection had already taken place.

http://www.tektonics.org/esch/hythere.html

http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/02/dee-dee-warren-on-error-of-hymenaenism.html