Preterist Scholar Inadvertently Supports the Pre-Mil View of Daniel’s 70 Weeks

  Here is a very interesting quote from “Modern Preterist” Samuel Lee (1783-1852), which shows that Preterists have not always historically held the view which places Christ’s crucifixion in the midst of Daniel’s 70th week.  Lee assures the reader that the “cutting off” of the Messiah occurred at the end of the sixty-ninth week.  But his interpretation places a strategic weapon in the hands of Pre-Millennialists.  Instead of acknowledging the possible futuricity of the 70th week, Lee veers off down the road of destructive Preterism.  Clearly at a loss as to the timing of Daniel’s remaining week, he writes:

“Let it be remembered, all here is indefinite.  No mathematical time, or portion of time, is therefore to be thought of.”

  As a consequence of his Preterism, Lee claimed that the 70th week of Daniel was a “mystical week” of unknown duration.  By this he enabled the interpretation of the “42 months” (last half of the week) to be juggled to fit his theory of fulfillment.  But such subjectivity stands self-condemned.  For if each of the other 69 weeks translates into a literal period of 7 years, then surely the last week, the most important and crucial of them all, cannot be “spiritualized” to mean anything other than a literal period of seven years. 

(from An Inquiry Into The Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy, 1849)

  “After threescore and two weeks” (i.e. together with the proceeding seven already mentioned, making sixty-nine as before), “shall Messiah be cut off.”  But “after” must be taken here in the sense of “within,” as in the case, “After three days I will rise again (Matt. 27: 63), that is, within three days:and so the chief priests understood this; for their request was,  that “the sepulchre be made sure until the third day;” not until the fourth and after the third should have passed: and it was accordingly, early on the third day that our Lord arose.  Similarly to this also is the place, “When the eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, His name was called Jesus,” &c.   But this circumcision necessarily took place within the eighth day.  The cutting off of the Messiah therefore, mentioned above, must take place, acording to Daniel, within his sixty-ninth week, and before the seventieth had commenced: which will be evident enough from what follows, viz.–

   “And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary:” which, according to this context, should take place after the cutting off the Messiah, and after the sixty-ninth week of this prediction should have passed.  And of this again, the next verse affords sufficient proof in saying, “And he shall confirm” (li. magnify) “the covenant with” the “many for one week.  And,” it is added, “in the midst of the week” (i.e. as just now referred to) “he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease,” &c.   Now this cessation could, and did, take place, only upon the fall of the Temple.  The Jews persevered in their usual services of course, and they would have continued to do so, had not God caused these to cease in this way.  It was accordingly so done, and it was done by the people of the Prince, i.e., the Romans, who should so come: and, be it observed here, this takes place in the one week, which is over and above the sixty-nine just mentioned.  It was in this seventieth week of Daniel, therefore, that this was to come to pass: and this again, in the midst of the said week.  And the fact of the case sufficiently informs us, when this happened.  It shows us too at the same time, that one half of Daniel’s sevetieth week, must now have past, and that another half was still to come.

   The angel accordingly further tells is (ver. 26), that “the end thereof shall be” (as) “with a flood.”  That is, the events of the end of the once holy city and sanctuary should be thus overwhelming.  He adds, “And unto the end of the war” (i.e. still farther on) “desolations are determined.”  The next verse informs us, after speaking of the cessation sacrifice and oblation, that “for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it” (i.e. Jerusalem) “desolate.”  It is added, “Even until the consummation” (i.e. complete end), “and” (until) “that determined shall be poured upon the desolate,” rather “Desolator.”  We have now therefore, a further consummation to be effected within this seventieth week: it is a determined judgment to be executed upon the Desolator himself: that is, upon the people of the prince who should come as a Desolator, and destroy the city and the sanctuary.  We are also told, that even until this consummation, Jerusalem should be made desolate: which is the same thing with “Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21: 24, &c.).  The END of this seventieth week therefore, exhibits the overthrow of this Prince, and of his power: it also places Jerusalem in a state of desolation, and brings us, of necessity, to our Lord’s prediction (Luke 21: 21), “When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the the desolation thereof is nigh.”

The Great Hermeneutical Challenge

 It was recently asked on a Christian forum, why are there so many diverse systems of eschatology? I mean, shouldn’t interpreting the Bible be simple–at least relatively speaking?  At first glance, one would think so, considering that Paul spoke plainly (2 Cor. 3: 12; Col. 4: 4), and that Timothy understood the Scriptures as a little child (2 Tim. 3: 15).  But not all Christians see things plainly, nor are they childlike in their understanding. 

  Because of the different hermeneutical approaches, a variety of eschatological opinions are afloat.  Most folks have been indoctrinated into a certain interpretive method, and thus are unable to see things from a different perspective.  But what we really ought to ask is this: how did Christ and the apostles interpret the Scriptures?  If we can gain insight into their hermeneutical approach, we will have a valuable key to understanding the true meaning of Biblical texts.

  For obvious reasons, I call this the Great Hermeneutical Challenge.  It is a challenge because few have taken it up.  It is “great,” for even fewer have thought of it.  But just think.  If we go back through the New Testament and see how Christ and the apostles interpreted Old Testament prophecy, we may reach some higher ground.  Is such ground worth reaching?  I think so!  Let us, then, put the theory into practice.

  When I apply my test to the New Testament, I begin immediately to see some glaring contradictions between the Biblical view and that of the “spiritualizers.”  Consider, for example, Christ’s temptation in the wilderness.  When our Lord was tempted, He refuted Satan with what most people would consider a “proof-texting” method (Matt. 4: 1-11).  The Lord quoted Scriptures plainly and simply, and expected that the apparent meaning of the verses were enough to refute him who from the beginning sought to put false glosses on the Word of God (Gen. 3: 1).  Let us take careful note of this.

  As a matter of fact, if we look at the usage of Old Testament Scriptures throughout the New Testament, we’ll find a conspicuous absence of those subtle dialectics used by students who embrace the Alexandrian method of Biblical interpretation. 

   We ought of course to keep in mind, that many prophecies have multiple fulfillment.  Therefore, when it is hinted by the apostles that a prophecy was fulfilled in their own time, it does not preclude future fulfillment of the same prophecy–especially considering that in most cases the context of the verse itself makes future fulfillment necessary.

  I guess what I am saying is this: that Christ and His inspired apostles always broke it down simply for their first-century listeners.  This simplicity is especially apparent in the predictions concerning our Lord’s first advent.  These predictions were fulfilled with a remarkable literality that cannot be denied. 

  Consider the following prophecies: Our Lord was literally born of a virgin (Isaiah 7: 14), rode literally upon an ass (Zech. 9: 9), was literally led as a sheep to the slaughter (Isaiah 53: 7), literally given vinegar and gall to drink (Psalm 69: 21), and literally bore our infirmities upon the tree.  His garments were literally parted (Psalm 22: 18), and He literally rose from the grave: all that the Scriptures might be fulfilled!

  Herein we have a clue as to how the inspired prophecies concerning the Lord’s second advent will be accomplished.  As the sun was literally darkened on the cross, so it must be darkened when He returns (Matt. 24: 29).  As Christ mounted to heaven in a literal cloud (Acts 1: 9), so He will return in the clouds of heaven to claim His kingdom (Daniel 7; Matt. 24: 30). 

  As we see, one advent cannot be literalized, while the other is spiritualized.  The manner of fulfillment of both advents must be the same.  At least one would think so, according to human reason alone. And there is nothing in Scripture which contradicts this assumption.  The rampant spiritualization of the prophetic texts is one of the main reasons why there are so many eschatological problems out there.

  But if we would up the Great Heremeneutical Challenge, we might find that our methods of interpreting Scripture are not Biblical.  What should we do in such a case?  Surely we should try to gain a better method of approach.

   While it is evident that not all portions of Holy Writ are transparent to the common reader, some lucidity is to be sought for and expected from a Book whose purpose is to reveal God’s salvation to sinners.  Ought we to expect any kind of perspicuity in such a book?  An application of the heremeneutical test outlined above would give us an affirmative answer.  Then let us seek for clearness of thought and expression.

  The simplicity of the Gospel.  That is what the Great Hermeneutical Challenge will drive us towards.  It amazes me whenever I think of how I used to allegorize the plainest verses of Scripture to suit my preconceived notions of what God must mean.  Was I putting words into the Savior’s mouth?  If so, I repent of my folly.  At least I see now that the Bible was written by and for plain-minded individuals.  They could not grasp the complex philosophical arguments of the Alexandrian school.  Nor could I, a humble preacher living in God’s green country.

  So what did I do?  I returned to the system of hermeneutics espoused by my brethren in simplicity of understanding.  And I’ve found that this has greatly benefited me, blessing my studies & helping me to grow in grace.  Also, it has given me a greater ability to explain the correct meaning of Biblical texts.  Would I ever go back to my former methods?  Absolutely not.

  Reader, although this is a brief and cursory study, take a moment to examine your hermeneutical approach.  Is it one that Peter and Paul might have used?  Is it one upon which Christ the Son of God would have set His seal?  Consider these things when you have time for meditation, and don’t answer me; answer your heart.  Then, if your answer is no, ask yourself whether you are ready to take up the Great Hermeneutical Challenge.  I ask, are you ready?  If so, then come with me, and let us dine.

The Logic of Full Preterism (Part 3)

   In our last two articles of Preterist logic, we have discussed the basic and fundamental difference between two methods of interpretation– between a priori and a posteriori reasoning.  We have been brought to the conclusion that Full Preterism relies essentially on a priori logic.  That is, it requires the formation of generalities, which often themselves are inconclusive.  These rash and ill-formed generalities are then passed backwards over the field of inductive evidence, and made to modify truths which can only be gathered through a posteriori logic.  In the present article, I intend to show that such a reverted process is antagonistic to the principles of evangelical faith.

    We draw the reader’s attention to the fact that, never do Christ or His apostles allow personal belief to establish the truths of theology.  Nowhere is it affirmed that “Because ye believe, these things are so.”  The tenor of Christian theology is: “These are the facts, receive them by faith.”  Yet what is faith?  Paul writes that: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11: 1).  And whence does faith arise?  From nothingness? –or from comprehension of facts? 

   Remember, facts constitute evidence.  The formation of generalities must be preceded by a careful gathering of facts.  Faith always works forwards, a posteriori.  Disciples are given the truths of Christian doctrine, and enjoined to accept them by faith.  Faith then serves us as evidence of the truthfulness of these facts.  In most cases, the facts lie outside the senses, and cannot be verified.  Thus, faith is necessary.

    Now, Full Preterism, relying as it does on a priori logic, works  contrary to this process.  The Preterist begins by forming “anticipations,” or rash and premature judgments.  The method by which he does so is sometimes inductive.  Yet his mind hurries ahead of the evidence, seeking rest in generalities which are false or uncertain.  In order to ‘prove’ these generalities, he must then drag them backwards over the inductive evidence, forcing facts to agree with his generalities.  Thus, his ‘faith’ (if such it can be called) is allowed to control the evidence. 

    The real problem with such a method is that it is un-Biblical.  Nowhere in Scripture is private judgment ever allowed to determine the truths of our faith. The interpreter’s business is to receive the truth, by working forward, gathering facts and comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2: 13).  In this way he rises from particular truths to general truths.  When he arrives at generalities, he may use them to test any incoming evidence.  However, if the evidence itself contradicts his conclusions, he must be willing to discard them, and start afresh.

    This is really the only way to proceed with our Biblical studies.   And most sensible people would agree with me.  Notwithstanding, the Full Preterist fails to follow any such method.  He uses generalities to amend the facts.  Basing his entire system on the theory that “all things were fulfilled in A.D. 70,” he works backwards, using deductive reasoning to figure out what is true and what isn’t– what “applies” and what doesn’t.  He doesn’t receive the truth.  He determines the truth.  And thus his faith is not evangelical, because it is not built on pre-existing facts.  It is based on “prior” assumptions.  This ‘faith’ is like a mirage hovering in the air, which vanishes as the thirsty traveler draws nigh.  It is an illusion, and needs to be dealt with as such.

    The common statement of Full Preterists, that “timing must determine nature” is an admission that F.P. requires an a priori method of logic.  But, if I am to proceed a priori I can ‘prove’ anything.  Let me offer an example.  Most people believe that the sky is blue.  Few have questioned the fact.  Suppose, however, a rationalist ventures to say that, because some people are color-blind, the notion blue is actually subjective.  After making this generality, he brings it backwards and infers that there is no such thing as color.

   Now, everyone knows that the sophist is missing an important piece of evidence: namely, that color-blindness is a visual defect.  This throws his entire theory out of orbit.  But because of the perversity of his will, the rationalist will typically reject this fact by making a clever distinction, and thus clouding the issue, saves himself from being discredited.  Apply this analogy to what the Full Preterists have done with doctrines such the resurrection and judgment, and you’ll see why F.P. offers a completely false and unacceptable alternative to orthodox theology. 

    I am hoping, at this juncture, that more people will wake up and realize the errors of the Full Preterist system.  It is really its own logical method that proves its undoing.  For faith, in order to grow, must have a solid foundation. It must proceed a posteriori.  While Preterists may claim to believe the same doctrines, only differing on issues of timing, they are fooling nobody but themselves, because, after all, they have professed that “timing determines nature.” 

    But if the nature of a doctrine be altered, you have changed its authorized meaning.  Since other doctrines depend upon the true meaning of the one you’ve changed, by doing this you also end up modifying them as well. By the time you’ve finished, your system results in a monster like “Universalism.”  It all began by substituting false generalities for the Word of God.

A House Divided

“When she would think, where’er she turned her sight
The airy hand confusion wrought,
Wrote, “Mene, Mene,” and divided quite
The kingdom of her thought.“

— Lord Tennyson

*************

    In our last article on “advanced eschatology,” we pointed out a grave dilemma of the Hyper-Preterist system of interpretation. It is one upon which their whole scheme is based: namely, that the New Testament canon of Scripture is no longer current. In order to get at the real truths of our faith, Scripture itself is not enough. We need help from the history books– preferably Josephus. Thus, according to this theory, Scripture doesn’t actually interpret Scripture. History interprets Scripture. Or, to put it more accurately, once upon a time Scripture did interpret Scripture. But that state of things ended in A.D. 70.

   For some reason this strange notion has taken hold of those who claim to be zealous advocates of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura. One man has even (mistakenly) called his website “Purely Biblical.” Hyper-Preterism has also gained numerous adherents within the “Church of Christ“– a group which claims the New Testament as its “sole rule of faith and practice in deciding matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical structure.” Now, I ask if it is possible to come to Full Preterist conclusions without supplementing the Bible with history and tradition. There is no way I can logically verify any of their doctrines by using the Bible alone.

   I suppose that Christians who don’t have the benefit of a historical education will never know the real truths of the Christian faith. That is too bad, for Protestant interpreters have generally felt Scripture to be sufficient. If their notion is mistaken, then we know not where to find the truths of Christianity. It must be in the mouths of interpreters– but only those who are really good historians. As you can see, all of this confusion arises from the canonicity issue. The Full Preterists claim that we are dealing with a canon that expired in A.D. 70. Or, if it didn’t expire, it no longer has any direct applicability– which practically means the same thing.

   According to Hyper-Preterists, we must filter the Scriptures through what we suppose happened in A.D. 70. And the results of the filtration vary wildly according to each interpreter. The prevailing notion of historical supplement has become so ingrained, that in many cases, students maintain that Revelation can only be interpreted with help from Josephus. Why not just join the Catholic church, and keep adding to the Word of God as the years roll on? Really, it seems Catholics have as much reasonable grounds for their theories as the Full Preterists have for theirs. And the Catholics claim the benefits of Divine inspiration.

   Now, Hyper-Preterists affirm that Divine inspiration ended in A.D. 70. And yet, after investigating their views, one must ask: how can they prove anything? For, if the key to a proper interpretation lies outside the Scriptures, one’s conclusions have no authority back of them, and therefore cannot be verified. They are backed entirely by extra-Biblical reference– which practically amounts to no authority at all. So, unless the F.P. teachers start claiming some Divine inspiration, they are building on a foundation of sand. Everyone knows that houses built on sand have a tendency to fall down and kill everyone living inside them. My advice would be to leave the house before it is too late. But, you see, there are always people that happen to know better.

     Months ago I wrote an article called Gospel Revisionism: Children, Beware! My main complaint at that time was the lack of historical support for the teachings of Full Preterists. This is still a very valid concern, and I’ll continue to push it for all it’s worth. Roderick Edwards, now an ex-Full Preterist, has also identified this enormous discrepancy. In his new article, The Faulty Foundation of Full Preterism, he writes: “FP is not only outside the pre-Reformation historic Christian faith, even the Reformation did not advocate no more creeds & no more confessions. Only the true heretics appeal to Scripture without creed or confession, in by so doing they can twist the Scriptures to their private interpretation to mean anything they desire.” 

    His conclusions are just. We must recognize, that if historic continuity of the faith isn’t valid, then the continued presence of Christ’s church in the world since A.D. 70 is doubtful, to say the least. While mere historical support does not “prove” the validity of our doctrine, historic continuity identifies us as belonging to the church founded by Christ and His apostles. For obvious reasons, this continuity must have its source in the original constitution of the church. Any doctrine, therefore, that is not essentially apostolic must be false. For, if the tree was planted in the First Century, it is not possible that it should bear divers kinds of fruit. The fruit must be uniform throughout all ages of history.  Viewed in this light, continuity may be seen as one of the essential corollaries of the church’s presence among men.

   Because of their denial of this principle, however, Hyper-Preterists have left the solid ground of orthodoxy, and headed into the treacherous swamps of confusion and error. They claim that in order to understand what the Bible really means, one must pass all Scripture through a filter, using a process of deductive logic and reasoning. However, it is not the filter alone that matters, but how one uses it. It is not the “A.D. 70” clause alone which is needed, but a correct a priori system of reasoning. Yet what is the proper train of reasoning? What is the true method? This they cannot tell us. And here is where the F.P. system breaks down. Dozens of “interpreters” are offering us completely different views. How can I find out who is right and who is wrong?

   My first impulse is to fall back on the words of Christ and His holy apostles. But the Full Preterists tell me that many of these words expired in A.D. 70. So, I am forced to sift through the Scriptures and figure out what “applies” and what doesn’t. Of course, this method would seem, on its face, to be false. Nevertheless, according to Full Preterism there is no way I can even be assured of that. In short, I can’t get any handhold on the truth, for I no longer know what Scripture “applies” to the church, and what to the “first century saints.” The confusion arises from the mistaken notion that the saints of the first century belonged to a ‘church’ different from that of today. Such an idea is foreign to New Testament teaching.  There can only be “one faith” and “one body” (Ephesians 4: 4-5).

   Meanwhile, what are the real implications of the Preterist theories? Well, the truth is no longer clearly defined, but obscure and elusive. And this is the “faith” upon which Full-Preterists expect us to build. Basically, the F.P’s require us to believe that Christ and the apostles, after going through the work of establishing a church “protected from every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4: 14), and ordained to continue “throughout all ages” (Eph. 3: 21), forgot to tell the saints that its doctrinal charter was only good for a few years. We must now use deductive reasoning to come to the truth– but without any really accurate way of arriving there.

   Obviously, such a notion is absurd, and would be almost laughable if it weren’t taken seriously. When earnestly believed, however, it forms a real danger to the faith. Wherefore Todd Dennis has correctly identified it as “toxic theology.” If we should accept the Full Preterist theories of interpretation, to what lengths will our theological ‘suppositions’ lead us? Anywhere, I suppose. Without Divine inspiration, my theory is just as good as yours. If our theories depend on extra-Biblical sources, we can no longer “prove” anything, but must rely on logical persuasion alone. This makes our faith to stand, not in the power of God, but in the wisdom of men. If we were allowed to use “proof texts” (as Christ and His Holy Apostles did) we might get somewhere. But the Full Preterists inform us that this Biblically-sanctioned method is “exegetically lazy and intellectually dishonest.” As you see, even honesty is acquiring new definitions!

   Now, reasoning a priori has its drawbacks. For when your logical method is deductive, you must reason from cause to effect. This means that you start with an assumption, and trace it back to its logical conclusion. But in a deductive process, you make your assumption control the actual evidence. This evidence can only be learnt through induction: “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28: 10). The deductive (a priori) method disdains such a process. However, if your anticipations are false, your conclusions cannot be sound. This is why such a great discrepancy exists between Preterism and New Testament teaching.

   In essence, Hyper-Preterism exemplifies one of the prevailing logical errors that prevent a student from conducting a true method of investigation. Francis Bacon writes: “The human understanding, when any proposition has once been laid down, forces everything else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although most cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions.” [Novum Organon i.46]. Hence, according to the F.P. method, timing is made to determine nature, and all the evidence which disproves its theories are cast aside, rejected, or ignored.

   I think it is at this point that the student must pause, take a deep breath, go back and see where he went off the rails. If there is confusion in the House of God let us be assured that its cause may be traced to ourselves.  There can be no firm faith in anything unless we have– 1): a valid field of research, which implies a current canon.  2): An exegetical method that affords us some accuracy in our results.  Canonicity is the main thing.  We must perceive that the New Testament canon is still current. By “still current” I mean that it has direct applicability for all ages of the Christian church. If otherwise, the church has no guide by which to steer.

   Let us ask whether we really believe that Scripture interprets Scripture. If we are going to let history interpret Scripture, why stop at A.D. 70? Why not let current events influence our exegetical views? Also, if we’re going to use history, what grounds are there for making even that our limitation? Suppose I have a hankering for Wordsworth’s metaphysical speculations. Can’t I use those as well? Really, if we’re going to stand outside of the Bible, what may we not use to interpret the Bible?

   It is fair to say, at this point, that Full Preterism is a product of nineteenth century Rationalism. It is very revealing that nobody has been able to trace Full Preterism prior to Hosea Ballou’s time. Now Ballou was a rationalist. Perhaps the most significant piece of rationalism of that period is Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason. This was published around 1796, roughly eight years before Ballou’s Notes on the Parables (1804). It is said that Paine “neatly dissected the Bible, to the horror of the pious.” While his conclusions were not taken up by the Preterist writers, the same spirit governs their interpretation. It requires– it demands– the use of extra-Biblical references; and such references are what really governs the meaning of the text. The result? Interpretation isn’t controlled by the tenets of Christian theology, but by the individual. And the individual must stand outside the Scriptures before he can even get at the truths of Christianity.

   But no theory is acceptable without Biblical authority. And Full Preterism has none at all. The grim simplicity of this sickly error really manifests itself as a work of Satan. Those who get rid of it will be doing themselves a great benefit. But to those who continue herein, I think time and the Holy Spirit will write “Mene Mene Tekel” to their tale.

The Logic of Full Preterism (Part 2)

   In my previous article on Preterist logic, I disclosed the basic method of reasoning which Full Preterists use to arrive at their conclusions. Their prevalent mode is a priori, or deductive. This rests on general assumptions, and is opposed to a posteriori, or inductive, reasoning, which rests on facts and experience. A main characteristic of a priori reasoning is that it allows the assumptions to control the factual evidence. Its reasoning is from cause to effect; whereas a posteriori logic reasons from effect to cause. This distinction is very important. For the proper method of studying the Bible is inductive. Deductive logic is only fit for framing theories, and thus it is essentially rationalistic.

   Almost all expositors start out by using a posteriori reasoning. However, the human mind is impatient of investigation, and prone to jump to generalities. As Francis Bacon wrote in The New Organon:

   “The mind is fond of starting off to generalities, that it may avoid labor, and after dwelling a little on a subject, if fatigued with experiment.”

   Hence it often misses important facts that can only be gained through patient induction. It runs ahead of the evidence. In most cases, this quirk is harmless. But occasionally it leads us into innumerable difficulties. The real mischief occurs when the mind, having arrived at a plausible conclusion, switches gears suddenly and starts laboring backwards, digging up the road over which it should have went carefully. It works a priori, forcing intermediate evidence to agree with its generalities. Perhaps unknown to the individual, false assumptions are used to alter, displace, and uproot the facts. The interpreter looks for reasons to support his generalities, rather than submit his generalities to an inductive analysis. The result? His conclusions have no accuracy.

   Full Preterism is a system that demands a priori reasoning. Its logical method is not optional, but required. Typically it starts with a “necessary” truth, such as that “all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.” Then it proceeds to filter out the evidence, working from an assumption to its logical conclusions. In the course of his studies, the interpreter will sometimes make use of the inductive method: but only to verify and confirm his assumptions. Whenever these assumptions are confuted by Scripture evidence, he tampers with the facts, often deliberately confusing their meaning or displacing their context. Sometimes he just ignores them.

   Let us look at these principles in application. One of the leading a priori thinkers, Don Preston, has written an article called a “Study of the Resurrection.” From a logical perspective it is a very interesting work. For it is packed with arguments that identify Preston’s reasoning as deductive. I believe one can show that his arguments are based on pre-existing generalities, which he is laboring to prove. His method is a priori. Here is an excerpt from his article:

   “In Genesis 2:15-17 God told man concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil “in the day you eat thereof you will surely die.” Man and woman ate of the fruit. Did they die that day? Amazingly, most people will say “No!” because Adam and Eve did not die physically after they ate the forbidden fruit. But this is not the whole story.

   “Death means separation, not annihilation. And Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden the day they ate the fruit. Thus, Adam and Eve died spiritually because they were cast out of the presence of God. If Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate then Satan told the truth and God lied! God said you will die in the day you eat, Satan said you will not surely die, Genesis 3:1ff. Who told the truth to Adam and Eve? Unless one can find Adam and Eve physically dead in Genesis 2-3, then the death they died was spiritual and not physical.“

   Here we see various phases of Preston’s logic. The first paragraph shows us how Preston typically begins when he wants to “prove” something. The argument he uses is of a bizarre and unusual nature. Most men do not think of such nonsense unless looking for reasons to support a theory. Well, Preston’s arguments are based on the necessary view that “all things were fulfilled in A.D. 70.” His reasoning is clear enough. However, he is thinking backwards, and that is why his idea strikes us so strangely. It is out of keeping with what we intuitively perceive to be the natural train of thought– that is, inductive. Next, Preston brings in a vague assertion to bolster his theory. He rallies Biblical evidence to its support. Finally, he throws us an a priori argument for the purpose of ‘clinching’ his case.

   Of course, Preston’s whole thesis can be easily discredited with a posteriori reasoning based on solid Biblical facts. One may remind Preston that Christ is the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15: 45). As Adam was the first to “die” (Romans 5: 12), so Christ was the “first-born from the dead” (1 Cor. 15: 20; Col. 1: 18; Rev. 1: 5). Now, what was the nature of Jesus Christ’s resurrection? The Scripture tells us it was release from the bonds of corruption, that is, natural death (Acts 2: 31-32; 13: 35-37). Thus, the penalty incurred by the First Adam must have involved physical death. If otherwise, what significance does Christ’s bodily resurrection have? Paul’s argument to the Corinthian church is based on the validity of Christ’s physical resurrection (1 Cor. 15: 12-15). Moreover, Christ’s resurrection is declared to be the forerunner of our own (Romans 6: 5; 8: 11). Its nature must therefore determine ours. There other proofs in Scripture which confirm a physical resurrection (Acts 13: 34-37; cf. Isaiah 55: 3).

   But as an a priori rationalist, Preston is unwilling to accept any proofs which confute his theories. If you study his article carefully, you’ll find that it is a lengthy ‘argument’ built entirely on a priori logic. He first invites us to a study of the “Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.” Then, he takes a cheap rhetorical shot at the “physical resurrection” idea– making it sound as silly as possible. This done, he attempts to dismantle it by way of a purely deductive process. But analyze his reasoning, and you’ll find that it works “prior to” the evidence itself. Preston requires the use of unproved generalities. However, the only way a student can arrive at generalities is by way of induction. If Preston’s assertions are correct, they must be verifiable through an a posteriori study of Scripture. But such a method never brings us anywhere near his conclusions.

   Another example of the a priori process is in order. There are certain theologians who claim that we are in “heaven now,” and that there is “no shame in the new creation.” Here is an incident of theology a bit more rabid in its implications. For, while Preston uses a great deal of deductive reasoning, he sometimes borrows collateral evidence of an inductive nature. The ‘heaven now’ theologians, however, carry the deductive mania to its extremest possible limits. Their systems allow almost no inductive proofs. They are almost purely subjective.

   Starting with the same “necessary” truth that “all things were fulfilled in A.D. 70,” they proceed slowly and methodically to dismantle the teachings of New Testament theology in a way that makes shame and sin cease to be present realities. They give us a good example of how a priori reasoning works not only against, but independent of, the actual evidence. For Paul’s struggle between the flesh and the spirit is still very real (Romans 7: 18-23; Galatians 5: 17). Every Christian who falls into the ways of the flesh experiences shame and remorse. Is this moral consciousness a mistake? Or is it a lie? Or is a Divinely ordained delusion? It is strange that something non-existent should be so real. A posteriori evidence would inform us that these “heaven now” thinkers have probably cauterized their consciences (Eph. 4: 19; Titus 1: 15; 1 Tim. 4: 2), and lost ability to feel the pangs of remorse. Their false doctrine only exemplifies the fact that a priori reasoning allows the cause to dictate the effect– even against the evidence itself.

   Obviously, the proper method of gathering truth is inductive. As the prophet writes: Precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, and there a little (Isaiah 28: 10). Moreover, the true field of evidence is the Scripture itself. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8: 20). The Full Preterist method is not only logically false, but unscriptural, for it requires the supplementation of history and tradition to verify its conclusions. The truths of Christianity must not depend on facts outside of the Bible itself. If such be the case, then the “Bible alone” cannot really be enough. Thus Full Preterists commit a two-fold blunder. And the sooner they identify their errors, the better. But will they do this? Many have become so hardened against the truth that the Word of God is no longer able to convict their hearts. They have allowed false generalities to control their understanding of facts. And thus the Lord hath sentenced them to spiritual blindness– “that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken” (Isaiah 28: 13). When they repent and return to Christ, the confusion shall vanish away.

The Logic of Full Preterism

  “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 1: 18).

****************

    In previous articles, I have mentioned that Full Preterism demands a priori reasoning.  This means that it is deductive– proceeding from cause to effect, or from an assumption to its logical conclusion.  The disadvantage of such reasoning is that the assumption is allowed to control the actual facts.  Thus, Full Preterists start off with an assumption that “all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.”  That done, they proceed to modify truths and teachings which can only be learned through induction, or a posteriori reasoning. 

    This latter process (a posteriori) involves reasoning from facts to principles, or from effect to cause.  It is the only Biblically-sanctioned method of studying the Bible, for it deals entirely with Scriptural evidence– “comparing spiritual things with spiritual“ (1 Cor. 2: 13). In this manner we proceed from particular truths to general truths.

    Full Preterism, however, must first stand outside the Scriptures, planting its feet on the moveable ground of history and tradition.  Beginning in A.D. 70, it works backwards, a priori, ploughing up, displacing, or otherwise altering the most vital teachings of New Testament theology.  But, if the results of this process differ from those of induction, it is evident that one set of conclusions must be false.  Which one?  I’d say it is that whose foundation rests outside the Scriptures.

    If we can only arrive at the truths of Christianity through a process of deductive reasoning, we must be prepared to have some accuracy in our results.  But here is where Full Preterism fails us.  Follow this process as faithfully as they will, the results vary wildly among its students.  Why?  The modus operandi which governs their exegesis is wrong.

    Of course, it will be alleged that there has also been a great disparity of doctrine among orthodox expositors.  We freely admit that there has.  However, when a disparity occurs, it usually does so because the interpreter’s logical method is a priori.  Instead of proceeding gradually upward by way of induction, he hurries from particulars to the most general axioms, and then labors backward, a priori, forcing intermediate axioms to agree with his generalities.  Thus, his inductive method (if he has any) is abortive, to say the least.

    Nevertheless, we must admit that, in spite of this great disparity, there has been an unquestionable unanimity of assent regarding the main tenets of the Christian faith.  The cloud of historic witnesses is confirmed whenever the student undertakes a simple a posteriori study of the Scriptures.  Thus it is the deductive method alone which causes the irregularity– not the uncertainty of Biblical doctrine.

    Perhaps we should remember that the Pharisees held similar theories of interpretation.  Using their traditions as an exegetical basis, they made the word of God of none effect.  In the first century, Rabbi Hillel claimed that there would be no future Messiah, inasmuch as the Messianic promises had already been fulfilled in the reign of Hezekiah (see Lightfoot).  Thus he used a historical fulfillment to nullify the teachings of Scripture.  Proceeding from an assumption (Christ=Hezekiah), he worked backwards, a priori, replacing the Word of God with his own teachings.  Granted his assumption was correct, did his high-handed methods have any authorization from the Old Testament?  Of course not.  Well, there is not a word in the New Testament that allows us to do the same thing.

    Our conclusion is this: that the rottenness of Full Preterism may be traced to its unwholesome logical methods.  Instead of seeking to fix the error of their reasoning, Full Preterists choose to bicker over the correctness of their syllogisms.  Yet the syllogism consists of propositions of facts supposed to be true.  If the facts themselves be proven false or uncertain, there can be no soundness in the superstructure.  Thus to argue over the correctness of syllogistic models is like offering to paint and shingle a condemned building.  It is a waste of effort.

    No, friends.  The only way to arrive at the truths of our faith is to let Scripture, and that alone, interpret itself, through a true process of induction– in other words, to use a posteriori reasoning.  I do not say that in so doing we shall ever attain to those topmost peaks where angels alone tread.  For it is impossible for man to perceive the entire truth– theological or otherwise.  Only in heaven will we “know, even as we are known” (1 Cor. 13: 12).  But if we continue working our way upward, we shall certainly enlarge our perspectives, and see truths which are inaccessible to those who remain below.  The key is to start climbing.