“This Generation” Shall Never Fail

“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled” (Matt. 24: 34).

   Hyper-Preterists rely on a special interpretation of the above verse to support their theology that JESUS CHRIST returned in A.D. 70. Unfortunately (for them) their view of the term genea has always been in the minority. When Jesus Christ said that “this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled,” He was promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.

   St. Chrysostom writes: “How then, one may ask, did He say, ‘This generation?’ Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, ‘This is the generation of them that seek the Lord’. For what He said above, ‘All these must come to pass,’ and again, ‘The gospel must be preached,’ this He declares here also, saying, All these things shall surely come to pass, and the generation of the faithful shall remain, cut off by none of the things that have been mentioned. For both Jerusalem shall perish, and the more part of the Jews shall be destroyed, but over this generation shall nothing prevail, not famine, not pestilence, not earthquake, nor the tumults of wars, not false Christs, not false prophets, not deceivers, not traitors, not those that cause to offend, not the false brethren, nor any other such like temptation whatever.” (Homilies on Matthew, LXXVII, i).

   Although the term genea is sometimes used to denote the totality of men living at a given period, Jesus Christ often employs the phrase when referring to the “children of this age.” In His parable of the unjust steward, He says: “For the children of this age are in their generation wiser than the children of light” (Luke 16: 8). Likewise, when Jesus rebukes the multitude for their unbelief, He says, “Whereunto shall I liken this generation?” (Matt. 11: 16). And he teaches that “the queen of the south shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it” (Matt. 12: 41). Our Lord is not referring to all men living at that time. Rather, he warns men that the righteous shall condemn the unbelievers in the Day of Judgment.

   Jesus Christ’s usage of the phrase “this generation” is in accordance with that of the Old Testament. David writes: “Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12: 7). This brings to mind the prophecy of Agur, who wrote: “There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that is pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw-teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men” (Proverbs 30: 11-14).

   Contrary to the children of this age (that is, the generation of the wicked), stands the generation of the righteous–those who shall inherit the age to come. David writes: “There they were in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous” (Psalm 14: 5). Also: “A seed shall serve Him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation” (Psalm 22: 30). And again, “This is the generation of of them that seek Him, that seek thy face, O God of Jacob” (Psalm 24: 6). Thus there are only two generations in this world. One belongs to the city of God, the other to the city of Babylon. (See Augustine for more information).

   When our Lord issued His Olivet Discourse, He was not saying that His predictions would be totally fulfilled within forty years, for He explicitly teaches that, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24: 35). Christ was comforting His church against coming tribulations which we must endure.

   In painting the picture of His final coming, He used figurative imagery from Psalm 18, in which David praised God for deliverance from the hand of Saul. Christ instructs us, that while the saints must be prepared to suffer adversities and afflictions, they shall ultimately be redeemed from the hand of their persecutors. This vital truth applies to the righteous of all ages, and not just ‘that generation,’ as the Full Preterists maintain. It was played out in the national history of Israel, when God’s people were redeemed from Egypt, and will be repeated on a larger scale when the Lord returns to judge the quick and the dead.

   Remember, too, that Christ was only speaking to Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13: 3)–the founders of His church and witnesses of His resurrection. How did Peter understand the Lord’s Olivet discourse? In his first epistle, he writes: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2: 9). Thus Peter is expressly identifying Christ’s body as a “generation,” which stands distinct from the “generation” of unbelievers. I doubt anyone who reads the Bible without knowledge of the events of the Jewish war would ever arrive at the conclusion that “this generation” meant only those people living at the time.

   Of course, we are not denying that some of the events in Christ’s Discourse occurred during the lifetime of the apostles. But Christ is talking about “the age” as a whole, which is characterized by moral depravity and offenses. On the sixth day He came to put away sin, and when the sixth day is over He shall reign with His saints over all the nations of the world. This will be the Millennium, or “restitution of all things” (Acts 3: 21) It is also called the “Dispensation of the fullness of times” (Eph. 1: 10) for the seventh day is the fullness of the week.

   This final day is also called “The Day of the Lord.” Lactantius writes: “We have often said that lesser things and things of small importance are figures and previous shadowings forth of great things; as this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great day to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits.” (Divine Institutes, VII. xiv). Since Christ rose on the eighth day, the general resurrection must follow the Millennium. Hyper-Preterism breaks this typology, compressing the Millennium into the limits of the sixth day. This restricts Christ’s kingdom to a 40 year period!

   Obviously, their view is false and heretical. And what must they do to amend their system? They must scrap their erroneous concept of the Olivet Discourse. At the present time, Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father, waiting until His enemies be made His footstool. As we serve Him in Spirit and in truth, let us maintain sound doctrine, and stir up the gift of grace within us, that we may produce fruit fit for the Master’s table. If we do so, we shall maintain our rank in the generation of the righteous and the saints of light forever. Amen.

On Historical Continuity of the Faith

 

   Everyone knows that the Lord has placed pastors and teachers in His church for the purpose of edifying His body.  But not all of us agree on the historic scope which these teachers occupy within the Kingdom of God.  Many feel that the early church fathers had a settled authority during their own times, but none for our own.  It is my purpose to debunk this delusion, that others may see the real validity of a historical continuity in all matters of Christian faith.

   I believe that if we belong to Christ’s body, we will apply ourselves to having fellowship with the saints of old.  We will not be content with a “new age” Gospel, but will perceive in the apostolic message an excellence above all worldly teachings, which we ourselves will attempt to follow. 

   As Christians, it is our business to learn what these teachers of the past delivered before we go out and attempt to preach Christ’s message to the world. 

   Unfortunately, I learned this truth a bit late.  As a Fundamental Baptist, I was taught that the local church ministry was sufficient for all purposes of discipleship.  Of course, the idea of an “indigenous church” permeated the entire ministry.  But few if any took seriously the teachings and writings of the saints of old. 

   There was talk of the “blood trail.”  There may have been vague speculations as to the continuity of various doctrinal issues.  But one thing strikes me as certain now, which I failed in my ignorance to see back then.  Namely, the modern church is (as a general rule) completely dissociated from the historic teachings of past ages.  We no longer identify with men who gave their lives to deliver the faith to us in its purity.  We claim that “the Bible alone” is sufficient–not perceiving, however, that the New Testament canon itself was decided on the authority of the same church whose teachings we now neglect.  Something is not right with this picture.

   This mistake many of us make is in thinking that a study of the Bible will always result in the same conclusions.  This is not at all the case.  There is a wide disparity of belief within Christianity regarding many important issues.  And this disparity has become more pronounced now than at any time in past history, because we’ve disconnected ourselves from the historic witness of Christ’s body. 

  Let’s face it.  When someone argues that the “Bible alone” is sufficient, he is only telling half the truth.  Yes, the Bible is the only  authoritative source for all matters of doctrine.  But the Bible doesn’t speak for itself.  It has to be studied and interpreted.  Thus, it is the interpretation which really matters. 

   Now, where many people disagree it is clear that only one party can be right.  For if the truth has many forms and flavors, then there is really no such thing as “correct” doctrine.  This theory would make all truth purely subjective; in which case there could not be such a thing as genuine Christianity.  For where the tenets are subjective, there is no certainty.  And if our doctrines are uncertain, then our entire religion must be thrown into doubt. 

   But this is obviously a lie.  For if the teachings of Christianity were subjective and changeable, then the apostles and elders of the church would have delivered the Gospel message in many different forms.  Far from being the case, however, they deliver the message in one form only. A sharp distinction is always made between “truth” and “error.”  It is our business to watch against “false teachers,” and to beware of heresies. 

   Where are these warnings coming from, if not from the presupposition that there is an authoritative truth, and that such truth alone is preserved by the church, to be perpetuated throughout all ages of history?  A wise man will see that this is the correct view.

   That means, that while the Bible is an authoritative guide, something more is required in order to guide us into a correct method of interpretation.  And here is where the pastors and teachers of the historic church come into play.  For as the Universal Body of Christ exists in all ages, then the saints of old have an equal authority for all ages.  Of course, when I say “authority,” I mean that their witness can never be set aside as outdated.  For as long as the church continues to exist, it will always preserve the same faith. 

   However, when diverse faiths prevail, the cause is not truth, but error.  For error always creates diversity of doctrine.  And when such diversity prevails, the only solution is to return to the teachings of the orthodox church, which alone have historical consistency.

   During the early centuries of Christianity, there was wholesale assent on the fundamental issues.  Take the resurrection, for example.  The idea of an allegorical, “non-physical” resurrection was held by none but heretics, because the church had kept its continuity of doctrine intact from the beginning.  We find in the earliest non-inspired documents evidence concerning the nature of the resurrection.  The Epistles of Clement, the Apostolic Constitutions, the writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr, all bear witness to a form of “sound doctrine” which had passed along from teacher to disciple from the very foundation of the church.

   But in recent years, due to the increasing departure from the historic teachings, men have arisen within and without the church to revive the very doctrines that were pronounced heretical by the historic synods and conventions. 

   Should the decisions of these synods be honored?  I think they should.  Of course, the question always arises, “how far should the decisions of the early councils be adhered to?”  For example, the honoring of icons was ratified at an ecumenical council.  Does that mean that we should worship statues of Jesus?  Of course not.  For this was obviously a later incrustation upon the “faith delivered to the saints.”  Naturally, an ongoing process of Reformation must be effected as well.

   But all this just touches the tip of the iceberg.  Fact is, the creeds and confessions stand united on all the issues necessary to the edification of the elect.  No man can reasonably deny this fact.  The formulation of creeds was a process that had its start in apostolic times.  And the statements of the later creeds support those contained in the earlier ones.  This ought to tell us that an agreement of doctrines must take place throughout every age of Christian teaching.  When we depart from the historical moorings of Christ’s church, we become schismatics–or worse, outright heretics.

   So what is my suggestion?  I propose that during these trying times, as the whole Christian world gets turned upside down, we steadfastly adhere to the orthodox system of doctrine.  This will be our invincible stronghold against all the incursions of predatory heresy. 

   It matters little whether you agree with every minor detail of the ancient writers.  There are shades and gradations of opinion.  There are differences of viewpoint and belief.  Notwithstanding, there is still only “one faith,” and it is a pure faith.  It is a knowable faith, and a faith that must continue to be delivered.  So let us do what we’ve been called to do.  And though we be harassed and persecuted by men, we shall gain honor and victory when Christ comes to reward His saints.

The Meeting of The Minds: A Preterist/Futurist Scenario

The following article also appears at: http://preteristmuseum.blogspot.com/2008/04/meeting-of-minds-preteristfuturist.html

   Suppose we were all called to a board meeting to decide the future of Christianity.  Some of us are Preterists, some Futurists, and the rest are undecided.  You and I both know that this latter group will determine the outcome of the whole affair.  Now, this board meeting will be in session for a whole month.  During this time, each member called to participate will be allowed to speak at length on why the church should embrace either Preterism or Futurism.  After the speakers quit, and on the last day of the meeting, the board will vote on which doctrines will prevail in the Christian world. 

   Whichever party loses will no longer be permitted to teach its views, and will have to dispose of all its books and learning-materials.  If the person be a minister, he won’t be allowed to preach in churches until he signs a statement affirming that he adopts the views of the winning party.  Any person who preaches a contrary doctrine will be subjected to heavy fines, and incur the permanent loss of his ministerial license.  Does all this sound nightmarish?  Nevertheless, something similar may happen one day.  But the future is in the hands of God.

   Now, let us think about this board meeting for a moment.  Which party would you belong to?  I know right away that I’d join the Futurist faction.  Why?  Well, because I believe that “The church” has always been since the Lord committed His doctrines to His apostles.  Moreover, I believe that the church has always taught the same faith, and that if there is something like “another faith” then there is clearly more than one church.  But the Scriptures never speak of two or three or many “churches.”  Paul says, “There is one faith” and “one body.”  So, then, that means that the correct system of Christian doctrine will be found throughout all ages of history.  Hence there can be no such thing as a “new discovery.”

   This obviously means that the same message which applied to the saints of Paul’s time also applies to Christians of our own day.  And this gives us a pretty sure indication of what Christianity is all about.  It makes things simple for us, so we don’t have to split hairs over such questions as, “Should we still keep the Lord’s commands?” – or, “Is there really going to be a future Tribulation, or is the world going to keep on getting sweeter and sweeter as the years roll by?”  When such question arise, I and my Futurist board-members will promptly refer to Scripture, and remind folks that “In the last days perilous times will come.”  That will settle the issue.

   But, if others still aren’t persuaded, I can refer to the documents of the historic church, and show that throughout all ages of Christianity, the consistent view has been that the world awaits a future Antichrist and future Tribulation.  Before coming to the meeting, I’ll have my 38-volume set of the Church Fathers shipped down special class, so that I can prove to the undecided members that historical continuity is not a theory, but a fact.  If others still don’t believe, that’s their business.  But I intend to show people the truth in any event.

   Now my opponents of the Preterist faction will try to prevent me from making this historical disclosure.  Their position is that “the truth” is a sort of evolutionary package.  Don’t get it?  Well, the theory is that the historic church had some idea of what they they were teaching, but only Joe Blow from Idaho could bring it to perfection.  You know, it’s kind of like a jigsaw puzzle.  The pieces have been coming together for 2,000 years.  Now we almost have the whole picture.  Just a few more days, and Billy and his pals will tell us what the truth is all about. 

   Dear fellow board-members: I ask you to realize the issues that are at stake.  Is the same Gospel preached to our fathers and forefathers sufficient for us?– or must we break down and accept a cessationist theology? 

   Let the Preterists put their cards on the table, for it’s evident that they’re not being honest with us.  Can they really give the Christian world answers on important questions of doctrine?  They claim knowledge, while concealing their ignorance.  Well, let them give us some detailed answers.  Let them tell us what doctrines apply to us today.  And moreover, since they’re so good at figuring things out, let them prove everything out of the Scriptures alone.

   Only, let each Preterist board member be isolated from all the rest.

   Now I hear a cry of “that’s not fair!”  Well, if not, let me suggest also isolating each Futurist board member.  Every member of the meeting must write his answers on a card, which will later be collected by the chairman.  Questions will include, “What is the correct doctrine of the resurrection?” — “Does baptism still apply today?” — “Will all men be saved?” — “Is the moral law still in effect?”  Of course, this is just a sampling of the many questions which will be asked.  But the same questions will have to be answered by all of us–Preterists and Futurists.  Then, once the cards have been collected, we’ll see which group is more consistent in its answers.

   But the Preterists cry again, “That method isn’t necessary!”  Well, why not?  What’s wrong with answering a few harmless questions?  After all, just visit Billy’s website and he’ll tell you everything you want to know, furnishing copious proofs to back up his claims.  I’m simply asking that the same thing be done once and for all. 

   Of course, my Futurist colleagues all know why the Preterists want to avoid such a situation.  You see, if their inconsistencies are brought to light, the undecided board-members won’t accept their views.  On the other hand, everyone knows that our views will be consistent all the way through.  This could make or break the whole meeting.  And so the Prets must think quickly before the move is adopted.

   But of course it will all amount to nothing. By this time folks already see that Preterism is weak and futile.  They can’t win, because they don’t even have any solidarity, let alone consistency in belief and doctrine.  And this is the same group that quietly suggests to us that we ought to leave the old Christianity behind and embrace their new-age “Gospel?” 

   The last day of the meeting, after the members cast their votes, the chairman tells us the verdict.  “Dear board-members,” he announces; “I hereby give the decision of this board concerning the ongoing debate between Preterism and Futurism.  But first, I want to thank you all for coming down.  Without your patience and determination, Christians would continue forever in strife and division.  But the contest is nearing a close.  Without any further ado, let me reveal what has been decided.”

   There is a strained hush in the room.  All await the final decision.  The creaking of Billy’s chair breaks the silence.  Mr. Chairmain gives an “ahem!” and shuffles his papers.  Then, slowly, he announces, “Ladies and gentlemen, I now give you the verdict.  The decision of this board rests in favor of the Futurists!”  With that he brings down the gavel, and calls the meeting to an end.  And that resolves the issue FOR-EVER! 

   Now, I know that this is all a fantasy.  I know that such a scenario isn’t likely to occur anytime soon.  I also am quite aware that some may not like how the story ended.  Nevertheless, I think we all know the moral of the story.  Preterism will never take over Christianity.  Not even at an Orwellian board-meeting.  So you’d better throw in that towel before you get walloped.

On A War That’s Being Won!

   If you’ve been around the theological scene for any amount of time, you’ll probably have learned of the long-standing hermeneutical war being waged between “Preterists” and “Futurists.” Silly as this sounds to an outsider with no concern in the matter, the warfare in question is a vital one–for its outcome will decide who gets to interpret the Bible.

   “Well, what’s wrong with that?” you may be asking yourself. “After all, being Protestants, can’t we just all get together and drop this divisiveness? Does it really matter how the Bible is interpreted, so long as we agree on the main points of Christianity?” Dear Mr. Compromiser: you have filled your niche in human society since the days of Noah. Your arguments are ‘old stuff.’ Now please sit down and listen.

   If it were a matter of personal judgment, I suppose nobody could complain. But the warfare goes far beyond personal judgment. You see, one party is trying to force its views on another party. One party is assaulting the other, under cover of darkness, trying to overturn centuries of historic witness, and that is not fair-play. The only thing the other party can do is throw up its arms to prevent the glass from flying in its face. It’s sort of like that.

   But it’s like this, too. Suppose you were walking with your children down the street, and a thief with a blackjack popped out of nowhere and struck you on the head, stealing your wallet. Would you resent that? If so, then you may be able to understand what I’m talking about. But enough with the analogies. Let me get down to the solid facts.

   What is a Preterist, after all? It is someone who believes in the “past fulfillment of prophecies concerning our Lord’s future advent.” OK. What is a “Futurist?” Hmm.. Please don’t refer to any theological dictionary, because you won’t find the term listed anywhere. The phrase “Futurist” was invented by “Preterists” to describe someone who believes that prophecies concerning the Lord’s second coming are future. I suppose the correct term would be “Orthodox,” but the Prets, for obvious reasons, prefer their own phraseology.

   In many sectors, the term “Futurist” has become a name used by Preterists to hurl contempt at those who don’t agree with their views. But where is this contempt coming from? The question is not so easy to answer. Historically speaking, Futurists have always recognized elements of “Past Fulfillment” in the New Testament writings. But, as a general rule they have not sought to turn these random elements into a system of theology. That is where Preterists and Futurists have their first disagreement.

   The Preterists take the elements of “past fulfillment” and melt them down into a system which usually results in a cessationist theology. Cessationism is a kind of faith that uses rationalistic methods to sift through God’s word, that it may construct a new revelation for today’s church. The underlying belief is that the New Testament had a primary application to the church of the First Century; and so we must figure out what “applied” to them, and what “applies” to us.

   Such a view obviously fails to see the New Testament as a single revelation made to God’s church for all ages. And naturally, special hermeneutics must be first devised before Preterists can succeed in “proving” that their views are valid. But because the majority of Christians do not accept their methods, they must go to war. They realize that in order to win they must destroy the methods of their adversaries. Thus they become predators and corsairs who sail upon the high seas of religion, shooting their cannons of doubt at any ship that looks like an easy target.

   They become snipers who hide in the trenches and shoot at their foes while the latter are foraging for food, or going about their business. Who dug these trenches in the first place? Well, it was he who felt the need to attack others. It was he who said, “I’m going to war with you, because I want to take over your territory.” And that’s how it all began.

   Sadly, it is these unprovoked attacks that have made many of us take a defensive position against even what is called “orthodox” Preterism. For anyone who offers unprovoked attacks on others shows that he is dangerous and must be guarded against. It is these attacks that have made us dig trenches of our own, and invent weapons to counter the assaults of the adversary. It is no pleasure to have to fight for one’s life. But at this point we have no other choice.

   Now, once the weapons of war have been gathered by one party, it sets out to attack the other party. And there are various ways of doing this. Outright assault is not always expedient. Infiltration is often much preferred. And this is their fatal error which has placed them in the wrong–morally, if not theologically. For God will not honor anyone who either provokes a war with someone else, or uses dirty tactics to gain a victory.

   In the 19th century, college and seminary professors made a sustained attempt to take over the machinery of the orthodox ministry. Liberal heretics arose & outright denied the resurrection of the body, as well as many other doctrines of orthodoxy. Traditional methods of interpretation were substituted for rationalistic ones. The “simplicity of the gospel” was replaced by intellectual legerdemain. For those who occupied the pews, it was a very dark time indeed.

   However, within a short number of years, the whole anti-orthodox movement became as the chaff of the threshing-floors. The Fundamental movement, driven by men like D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon, showed that pure apostolic Christianity had a power that rationalism lacked. And Christians gladly once more embraced the historic teachings.

   And what was the upshot? Well, whatever territory had been taken over by Preterists was vigorously regained by Futurists. This ought to have told the Preterists something. And I suppose many of them were driven backward into their camp to nurse their sick and wounded as best they could. Many of them learned their lesson, albeit some gnashed their teeth in silence…

   During the greater part of the twentieth century, the world heard very little from the Preterists. In 1971, however, a man named Max King popped out of obscurity, reviving an extremist heresy which had been concocted one hundred and twenty-five years earlier by a disgruntled former-churchman named Robert Townley.

   King became very active within the Preterist movement, and was quickly recognized as the father of a stronger, less pregnable form of Preterism. The ranks, though long frayed and serried, began to thicken, and a harvest of die-harders began to be reaped by his efforts. Assisting him in this movement were others who promoted the publication of the books written by those same liberal professors whose views had been rejected years before.

   The movement, however, still gained little force. Then, in the 1990’s along came the internet. The efforts spearheaded by King gained a new foothold and began spreading more rapidly. Teachers began to increase with the proliferation of heretical propaganda, and since that time Preterists have made repeated efforts to destroy the foundations of orthodox theology.

   Now, dear friend, please don’t tell me about ”toleration.” If someone were in your basement planting dynamite in an attempt to blow up your house, what would you do? I’m sure you would consider him an enemy. Well, that is what’s happening today within the Church. There are people trying to destroy its foundations, by changing the very way that the Bible is being read.

   And whenever they succeed in doing this, they weaken the faith of others. They throw a cloud over God’s word, to prevent the sunshine from striking the Christian’s heart. They want to kill hope, they want to kill joy. They want to kill the fruits of the Spirit, and to replace pure Christianity with a diabolical, intellectualized “Gospel,” which will give the world a way to come to Christ without having to follow Him and keep His commandments.

   That may sound like a strong assessment of the current situation. But I think that’s what it is all about. As I’ve said, this is primarily a war of heremeneutics. These heremeneutics are engineered to produce a particular set of conclusions. And there is no way to get to these conclusions without re-inventing the principles of Bible-interpretation.

   However, as long as system lacks spiritual energy and power, it will amount to nothing. Rather, I believe with all my heart that pure Apostolic Christianity is still the answer for today. It will always be the answer. And it is my prayer that the following months will see great victories won on behalf of the Orthodox church. For this is about a war that’s being waged. But it’s also about a war that’s being won. Maranatha!