How Christians Fall Into Heresy

   From its earliest history the church has been vexed by heresy.  We often wonder, why do heresies exist?  Paul, writing to the Corinthians, said: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Cor. 11: 19).  That is, heresies exist for the trial and refinement of the saints. They are a “necessary evil.”   The wheat and the tares must grow together until the harvest (Matt. 13: 30).  In a great house there are many vessels– some of gold & silver, others of wood & earth (2 Tim. 2: 20). 

   But though heresy is no new thing, it has been controlled and even suppressed in past ages. In recent years, however, a number of “strange and divers doctrines” have made themselves felt in certain sectors of the Christian community.  These doctrines have caused turmoil and upheaval in the lives of others, preventing many from exercising evangelical (i.e. saving) faith.

   Lest more souls led into error, it is essential to know how to deal with these problems when they come along.  As with any disease, having the right vaccinations is required.  But this presupposes that we understand all of the “risk factors” involved in accepting heresies.  This article will deal with the question: “How do Christians fall into heresy?“

   In a way I am apt to deal with this issue, for in 2005 I accepted the heresy of Hyper-Preterism, & became immersed in spiritual error and apathy for a year-and-a-half.  When I look back at this unfortunate period, I realize that my decline into heresy was gradual and insidious.  It was not something I embraced at once.  I had first to espouse a number of false premises which determined my actions.  As a result my practical policies became molded along different lines–lines which led me straight into heresy.

   I feel that it is important to tell Christians how they can prevent themselves from making the same mistake.  In pursuance of this goal, I have identified a few salient “risk factors.”  How do Christians come to identify with heresy?  As I see it, there are five “easy step” signs which we must guard against. Each of these steps forms a lower grade in the descent into error. Things to watch out for are:

   #1: When we practice our Christianity inside a historical vacuum.

   #2: When we espouse a false conception of “Sola Scriptura.”

  #3: When we accept Alexandrian/esoteric methods of Bible-interpretation.

   #4: When we remove ourselves from the local church environment.

   #5: When we refuse to listen to the admonitions of others.

   The First error (#1) comes into play more often we think.  As an Independent Baptist, I was “prime pickings” for the incursions of predatory teachers.  I had been taught that my ‘denomination’ was completely separate and distinct from the church as a historic body.  In fact, I was even told that we were not a denomination & did not belong to Protestantism.  I knew nothing about church history other than the “Blood trail.”  I had vague & shadowy notions that Baptists had always existed, & that the Roman Catholic church had always been the enemy. 

   It is clear to me now that, however positive certain aspects of my faith were, I was practicing my religion inside a historical vacuum.  Thus, when doctrinal novelties started to come my way, I did not ask the simple question that might have prevented me from embracing error: “Do these doctrines have any historical validity?”  If I had been taught the truth–namely, that the church has a real continuity throughout all ages of history, from the very moment of its first constitution by Christ & His apostles–if I had been taught these things, I would never have fallen into heresy.

   But because of the historical vacuum in which I was, I had come to identify with another error (#2).  This was the false concept of the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” which is prevalent among many Protestants.  It is the belief that “Sola Scriptura” means “My interpretation over yours.”   Let us face the painful fact that the Protestant church has gravely abused the principle of “private judgment.” This has gone on to such an extent that the same doctrines may mean something different to every person you ask.  This breaks down the idea that there is any “absolute truth” in the Word of God, and paves the way for “emergent” and relativist tendencies in religion.

   Because of the widespread abuse of private interpretation, many have felt, and some have even ventured to assert, that nothing can be known for sure.  Of course the error lies in the assumption itself.  If it is true that nothing can be known, then it must be known that nothing can be known.  But if it is known that nothing can be known, then something can be known.  Therefore, it is false that nothing can be known.  Since there are absolute truths in Scripture, we must seek to learn them.  And since Christ’s church has functioned for 2,000 years, as “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15), then we are sure to find them running throughout all ages of Christian history. 

   It is bad enough to exercise Christianity inside a historical vacuum.  But when we embrace the false idea that Sola Scriptura means “my private interpretation of Scripture,” we break away from the “one body” and “one faith.”  We assert that our newfangled views are unequivocally correct, & that the historical church has always been wrong.  This false premise has caused many to err from the paths of unity, to become schismatics who sow division.

   In getting rid of Papal infallibility the Reformers made a wise move.  But their nominal successors, which include Christian “teachers” of our own time, have run to the opposite extreme.  Whether they realize it or not, they have embraced the wormwood philosophy of “personal infallibility.”  Obviously there is a middle ground which we as Christians have refused to follow.  Those who reject the pope’s authority for their own are perfect candidates for heresy.

   Collateral to the above errors is another (#3) which caught me about the same time.  That was the acceptance of an Alexandrian/esoteric method of Biblical interpretation.  This is a kind of hermeneutics which, knowingly or unknowingly, mixes Christianity with Greek philosophy.  Its concept can be traced back to Pythagoras, who divided his students into two classes– exoteric and esoteric.  The exoteric group has to be content with the outward meaning of the text, while to the esoteric ones the more advanced doctrines are confided. 

   Christians who accept this mindset are elitists who perceive the Bible as a series of “higher mysteries” to which only they have the keys.  The apparent meaning of words is only an outer garb of something abstruse & inaccessible to the majority of Christians.  When practically carried out, Scripture is made to mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean.  Here is where heresy enters.

   The first-century Gnostics used this method to attack the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body.  Gnostic Christians have always existed, and continue to follow the footsteps of their ancient founder Simon Magus.  Gnosticism also allies itself with Greek philosophy to advocate the notion that matter is evil.  And therefore Gnostics teach that “resurrection” is a release or escape from the bondage of matter. 

   Origen, the foremost proponent of the Alexandrian school, promoted this view when he taught that the body is the prison-house of the soul.  The idea has always been prominent more or less among rationalistic thinkers, and is a chief article of assent among metaphysicians & poets.  Nevertheless, it bears certain similarities to heretical Gnosticism. The Pythagorean view of esoteric teaching makes it easy for men to spiritualize and allegorize the plainest declarations of Holy Writ. 

   But this Alexandrian/Gnostic mindset has grave errors.  In the sermon entitled “Faith,” Henry Van Dyke writes: “Religion is full of mysteries.  The object of the Bible is not to increase them, but to remove them.  If a certain amount of mystery remains, it lies in the subject, and not in the way in which it is treated.  For the most part, the teachings and rules of Scripture are so clear and direct that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein; they shed light and not darkness; they disperse the clouds to reveal the sun.”

   How I realize this now!  But when I adopted the Alexandrian mode of interpretation, I lost site of the facts, wandering deeper & deeper into the labyrinth of Gnostic Christianity.  This enabled false teachers to impress their views upon me that the historic church had it wrong for 2,000 years.  When I finally did accept heresy, I had already imbibed the misconception that only a small number of men can ever arrive at “the truth” of Scripture.  I thought I was advancing in knowledge, but I was really going backwards. Had I kept in mind that Scripture was written to Galilean fisherman and simple-minded folk, I would never have fallen into error.

   Then, too, the more detached I became from mainstream, historic Christianity, the more I disparaged the importance of the local church in the life of the believer.  And this pushed me into error #4.  In drifting away from the  local church, I appealed to my privileges in the “church universal.”  Most Christians who dissociate themselves from organized Christianity do the same.  This is a grave mistake. 

   Of course it is often difficult to find a church that is truly a center of spiritual grace & worship. However, we are exhorted not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10: 25).  In addition, only a local assembly can baptize believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  The local church is needed to keep the ordinances and sacraments of Christianity.  Thus it should occupy an important place in the life of each Christian.

   The real trouble of leaving a local church environment is that it releases one from any kind of church discipline. How can we discipline those who aren’t under any type of church authority?  This is very difficult, if not impossible.  Therefore, while we may combat their false doctrines, we must acknowledge that as long as heretics operate outside the confines of organized Christianity, they have a right to freedom of speech.  I guess the real question is, do they pose a danger to others in this capacity?  The answer is yes–but only if you listen to them, & take their teachings to heart. Otherwise they have no power over you.

   Error #4 generally works alongside error #5.  As I cut loose from the local church, naturally I didn’t feel myself obliged to listen to anyone else.  Ironically, on looking back now, I see that there was really no admonition from others.  My pastor was having personal problems regarding his salvation, & was in no position to counsel me on the dangers of false teaching.  I had already found a “teacher” who claimed he had “the truth.”  And because I had accepted a number of false premises, this teacher found a ready listener when I came to visit him that memorable day in November 2005.

Had I received Scriptural admonition, however, it is likely I would have turned.  Then again, perhaps I would have remained steadfast in my views.  It is impossible to tell now.  As a rule it is very difficult for one who has set his mind on heresy to listen to the counsel of others–especially when he sees himself as having superior knowledge/understanding of Scripture.  That is why when one has embraced the four above errors, it is a simple matter for him to sink into error #5.  And once he does so, leaving heresy is something that only God can convince him to do (2 Tim. 2: 25-26).

   Irenaeus wrote: “They must be opposed at all points, if perchance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.” (Against Heresies, III. i. 3).

   Luckily, I had that inner voice that told me the doctrines I had accepted were wrong.  Although I ignored the promptings of that voice many a time, eventually the spiritual apathy in which I fell convicted my heart that a return to truth was needed.  It never ceases to amaze me in how many ways I’ve come back “full circle” to the same Gospel I was taught.  At any rate, I know full well that by identifying all of the risk factors involved in heresy, I see more clearly than ever how easy it is for Christians to get sucked into a false system. 

   So, having discussed all of the risk factors, what is our recommended mode of vaccination?  There are five things we can do to help prevent ourselves and others from accepting heresy.  They are:

   1. To ensure that our teachings are in harmony with 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity.

   2. To develop a correct view of “Sola Scriptura” which keeps individual interpretation within the “rule of faith.”

   3. To interpret the Bible in its most natural & obvious sense, unless something in the text itself warrants a figurative interpretation.

   4. To maintain (if and when possible) communion with a Scripturally-organized local church.

   5. To remember that we are “subject one to another” (1 Peter 5: 5), and may be held accountable for our actions.

   These, then, are some active measures we may take to prevent ourselves from being caught by heresy.  False doctrine is insidious and soul-damaging, & so there is no such thing as being “too cautious” in our protective armor.  Just remember that removing ourselves from a risky environment will greatly lessen our chances of being ensnared by wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Then let us get inoculated against these errors, that we may stand in the truth, steadfast & immoveable.  And once firmly established, nothing that anyone says will ever cause us to fall again.

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.

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.