The Unbelief of Preterism

    As a follow-up to my article, The Infidelity of Preterism, I thought it well to further explore the kind of rationalism and unbelief on which Preterist theology bases its claims. While systematic Preterism has little historical support, there are a number of writings documented throughout church history that contain key concepts espoused by Preterism. One of these concepts is that our Lord’s own description of His “coming in clouds with power and great glory” is purely symbolic in nature. Preterists hold that such language doesn’t describe a physical reality, but points to a hypothetical and providential coming, which was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

   As I wrote in my last article, much of Preterist theorizing arises from the a priori notion that there must be a “perfectly logical explanation” for what is commonly viewed as supernatural. That’s just the problem, though. Preterism stands in the the wisdom of men, and not the power of God. In their effort to be “logical,” they overthrow anything that seems out of line with the established laws of the natural world. As a result, Scripture-teachings are made to accord with their views.

   Of course, no reverent student of Scripture would agree to such a cold analysis as Preterists would bring to its pages. And so, the business of the Preterists is to attack Biblical inspiration, or at least discredit its authority. And herein is manifested the unbelief of Preterism.

   Eusebius of Caesarea (otherwise known as Pamphili), was one of the earliest teachers to espouse a Preterist view. In his writings, he professes to have seen the coming of the kingdom in his own day, in the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. To Eusebius, the restoration of the Christian churches under the new emperor was the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the “dry bones” coming to life. He writes: Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: ‘Bone to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage.” (Ecclesiastical History, X. iii. 1-2).

   Because Eusebius did not believe in the inspired literality of the Scriptures, it was easy for him to take such a prophecy as Ezekiel’s and force it into a fourth century context. Similar chicanery is seen all throughout his writings. Moreover, due to the Chiliastic teachings of the Apocalypse, Eusebius is said to have denied its apostolic authorship, inventing an imaginary “John the Elder,” whom he professed to have written the book.

   That is just one early sample of the rationalism and unbelief by which Preterism operates. Now fast-forward to the 17th century. Another example of Preterist unbelief is witnessed in the writings of John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Protestant divine. Although some would paint him a reverent student of Scripture, a careful study of his works reveals a thinly-disguised unbelief in the supernatural.

   Among his many questionable views, Lightfoot believed that the “speaking in unknown tongues” alluded to by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, was nothing miraculous or extraordinary, but mere utterance in the Hebrew language. He writes: “We inquire not in how many languages they could speak, but how many they spake in the church; and we believe that they spake Hebrew only.” (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations, Vol. 4, pg. 258).

   While Lightfoot did not outright deny the inspiration of the Bible, he is noted for stripping revelation of its supernatural elements, and bringing the doctrines of Scripture into accord with the laws of human reason. According to Lightfoot’s approach, the Scriptures were treated as divinely-endorsed human documents, and not as transcendent communications steeped in the miraculous and extraordinary.

   Fast-forward again to the 19th century. During this period, it became obvious that Preterism was growing alongside the skepticism of the Higher Critical schools, as something of a collateral movement. The relation between Preterism and Higher Criticism is evidenced in the works of liberal academics like Moses Stuart, Samuel Lee, and P.S. Desprez.

   But while their writings show how quickly the Preterist leaven was proliferating among academics, the damage it did within the church is not to be underestimated. Canon F.W. Farrar (1831-1903), an Anglican clergyman, had imbibed the poison of the critical schools. Thus his writings teem with a cold unbelief in the supernatural. Farrar went so far as to deny the authorship of the Book of Daniel, alleging that it was written by a “pious Jew” of the post-exilic period. Farrar disagreed that the “cutting off of the Messiah” (Dan. 9: 26) had anything to do with our Lord. He rather insisted that it pointed to the deposition and murder of the high priest Onias III. Farrar was also a universalist, who denied the doctrine of eternal punishment.

   The prime example of Preterist unbelief of that period, however, is seen in Scotch clergyman J. Stuart Russell’s 1878 book, The Parousia. In this tome Russell covertly attacked the inspiration of the Bible. Like Eusebius, Russell found the Apocalypse a perfect target for his critical marksmanship.

   Speaking of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” Russell writes: “It must be remembered that it is a poem rather than a history that we are now reading; a drama, rather than a journal of transactions, and that there is no book in which poetical and dramatic effect is more studied than in the Apocalypse.” (pg. 510).

   Hence, Russell basically denied that Revelation was the word of God. In fact, when he saw inconsistencies between his own interpretation and the actual facts, rather than question his Preterist theory he treated the Scriptures as human documents.

   Here’s a case in point. After doing his utmost to prove that the first beast of Revelation 13 was actually emperor Nero, Russell realized that Nero’s death in A.D. 68 did not fit in with his being “taken alive” at Jesus Christ’s alleged A.D. 70 parousia, as detailed in Revelation 19: 20. Russell’s explanation is as follows: “No doubt there is something here of an anachronism. The death of Nero is placed in the vision subsequent to the judgment of Jerusalem, whereas it actually preceded that event by two years or more. As we before remarked, something must be conceded to poetic license. In an epic, a drama, or a vision, it is unreasonable to require strict chrononolgical sequence.” (pg. 512).

   This type of interpretation was perfectly compatible with Russell’s disbelief in the Divine authorship of the Apocalypse. Russell seems to have viewed the prophets as nothing more than eastern poets gifted with a dose of prescience. He writes: “First of all, the utterances of the prophets are poetry; and secondly, they are Oriental poetry.” (pg. 350).

   Let the reader note that Russell’s work The Parousia is viewed among Preterist circles as the official “hornbook” of their teachings. It has had more impact upon the “Modern Preterist” movement than any other work. Partial Preterist Ken Gentry writes: “Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compelling written volume. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject, and has had great impact on my thinking.”

   Incidentally, Gentry is one of the main proponents of the view that Nero was the Antichrist. He, along with colleagues Gary DeMar and James Jordan, has helped produce books and videos espousing this view. As typical of his teaching, Gentry argues that the “huge hailstones, of one hundred pounds each” mentioned in Revelation 16: 21, were actually boulders thrown by Roman catapaults during the siege of Jerusalem! For more information on Gentry’s rationalism, see Dr. Thomas Ice‘s article, 100 Pound Hailstones.

   After all this unbelief in the inspiration of Scripture, how refreshing it is when we come to the 20th century, and are met by a salutary wave of old-fashioned pre-millennialism. Speaking of the Apocalypse, Clarence Larkin, one of the chief proponents of the Dispensational view, wrote: “While the Book of Revelation contains many symbols, they are explained in the book, and we must not forget that it is not a mysterious book, for it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing to te reader. Rev. 1: 1-3. The Book is to be taken literally.” (Dispensational Truth, pg. 104).

   Any impartial student of church history will clearly see why Dispensationalism has grown so rapidly during the past decades, to the point where it is now the chief faith of Christendom. Because it is based on childlike belief in the Word of God, it must have a greater attraction for all kinds of men. The esoteric and elitist tendencies of Preterism, however, make the latter view a bad bet for the church. And this is probably why most of its adherents are numbered among liberal intellectuals.

   But although Preterism is not as widely accepted as it was during the 19th century, its modern proponents still carry on the old tradition of denial. And such behavior can only result in a dead faith, which is totally unable to save souls. I even go so far as to say that in many cases, Preterism may result in the loss of individual salvation. In the coming weeks I hope to bring out further the dangers of such theology. Until then, carefully study the above information, and you’ll see that Preterism is really a theology that is steeped in unbelief. And regardless of our professions, let it be known that no unbeliever shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The Infidelity of Preterism

   During the past few decades, there has been a significant increase of Preterism among liberal academic circles. While the majority within the Christian church have repudiated the notion that “all things were fulfilled in A.D. 70,” the intellectuals have insisted that they know not the truth; and therefore, a widescale push has been launched to disabuse Christians of the concept that there is to be a personal, visible, glorious second coming of Christ.

   Of course, any true connection between Christianity and the intellectualism of the schools is nil. Which is why the church has been so unwilling to accept the doctrines of Preterism. It may be safely said, in fact, that Preterism will never work its way into the mainstream for precisely this reason: because it relies on the wisdom of men, and not the power of God.

   Do you disagree with me? Well, what did Paul mean when he said: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2: 14). The intellectuals will tell us that this has something to do with esoteric knowledge, which cannot be understood by the ignorant masses, but only by themselves.

   Howbeit, it is clear that the “things of the Spirit” must include the very doctrines which Paul was delivering to the churches. The apostle was revealing truths to them which could only be received by them, because they had the Spirit. These truths expressed by Paul were (and still are) deemed foolishness by the world. But they are in truth, the very wisdom of God. Wherefore, when he spoke of the resurrection of the dead to the Athenians, we read that “some mocked” (Acts 17: 32). Because they were not partakers of the Holy Spirit, they considered the doctrine of bodies rising from the graves to be a piece of foolishness–just as men do today.

   What is Preterism, really, but the outworking of a latent skepticism, which seeks to find a “perfectly logical explanation” for everything? Because they do not believe it possible for the Son of Man to literally return in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, literally attended by all His holy angels, they seek a more reasonable explanation: one which leaves revelation stripped of its supernatural elements, and offers an interpretation which satisfies the incredulity of the scholastics.

   This trend of “de-supernaturalizing” the doctrine of our Lord’s second advent is consistently seen throughout the history of the Preterist movement. One of the earliest Preterists, Eusebius of Caesarea, suggested that the establishment of Christ’s kingdom as predicted in Daniel 7 was fulfilled with Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, and conjoint reign with his sons (Oration, III. ii, iii).

   John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Protestant divine, was also heavily rationalistic in his interpretations of the second coming. He taught that the “parousia” of Matthew 24: 3 was not a personal coming of Christ, but a providential coming to destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus the “angels” of Matt. 24: 31 were interpreted as “ministers,” while the “trumpet” was said to be nothing more than the Gospel call. (see Commentary on New Testament from Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 2., pg. 320).

   During the 19th century, such skepticism reached its apex in the development of Hyper-Preterism, a doctrine which probably was invented as a support for Universalism. Notwithstanding this extremist view, however, moderate forms of Preterism were endorsed by a majority of academics.

   In his Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of St. Mark (1896), Ezra P. Gould writes: “God coming in the clouds of heaven with his angels, and preceded or announced by disturbances in the heavenly bodies, is the ordinary prophetic manner of describing any special Divine interference in the affairs of nations... The prophecy becomes thus a prediction of the setting up of the kingdom, and especially of its definite inauguration as a universal kingdom, with the removal of the chief obstacle to that in the destruction of Jerusalem” (pg. 241).

   Obviously, such exegesis is purely subjective, and motivated by a tacit avowal that the supernatural elements of the Bible are simply not true. This tradition of rationalizing the Word of God has been carried on by modern Preterists like Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan. But are such teachers following the wisdom of God? Or are they in fact promoting a dangerous form of infidelity?

   I would say that the modern proponents of Preterism are no nearer the truth than was Eusebius, or John Lightfoot, or Ezra Gould. Like their forbears, having left the simplicity of the Gospel behind, and embraced man’s wisdom, in process of time they become devoid of understanding. Having rejected the revelations of the Holy Spirit, and substituted their own concepts for the truths of God’s word, they fall into a mass of unbelief that poisons their very souls. They hearken to Satan himself, who initiates the downslide by asking: “Hath God really said that?” (see Gen. 3: 1).

   In their desire to become wise, and to be greater than their brethren, they become puffed up in their own esteeem, and consequently fall. The results of their destructive tenets may be seen throughout academic circles, as also on the worldwide web.

   And how many thousands of souls have been lost through such pernicious teaching? If we could hear the cries of those who are now in torment, because they accepted a false Gospel, we would wake up and realize that theology is serious business, and nothing to trifle with. If we are condemned, it is through no fault but our own. But if we stand, it is by faith alone (2 Cor. 1: 24).

   While Preterists routinely mock the children of God for the simplicity of their faith, they are unable to see that their own pretensions are products of the flesh, and not of the Spirit. They who walk after the flesh must die. But the Holy Scriptures are the very revelations of the Spirit of God; and they who believe them, with a childlike mind and an implicit faith, will surely live: because they have accepted of the things of the Spirit, by Whose grace they will be upheld.

   True, Preterism has slain its thousands and its ten thousands. But for the most part, the people of God are immune to their deceptions. They are so because they accept the plain literal statemements of the Bible as authoritative and absolute. Intead of sitting in judgment on the Word, as sophists do, they submit to the authority of the Word as it judges them, discerning the thoughts and intents of their heart (Heb. 4: 12). How much better to have a lively and simplistic faith, as the apostles did–a faith that is pure and unalloyed– than to embrace one which obscures and confounds the oracles of God insomuch that they can no longer be understood?

   We believe that such a faith as theirs must result in shipwreck. Although Preterists now boast of their intellectual superiority, the time is coming when they’ll need every ounce of spiritual support their religion can give them. But in that day and that hour, when the darkness comes down, they’ll find to their dismay that there is no more oil in their lamps. When that time comes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

   Those who discern, however, that Preterism is really just a subtle form of infidelity, will steer as far away from those doctrines as he or she can. As a former Preterist, I assure you that Preterism leads to nowhere but hell. Why? Not because it is positively sinful, but because it is ineffectual to produce the kind of faith that gets a soul to heaven.

   If you are a Preterist, please hearken to this message, and ask yourself, has your relationship with God grown better since you’ve embraced the doctrines of past-fulfillment? You know the answer is no. So what you need to do is wake up, repent of your error, and return to the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s as simple as that.

Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 2)

   Of course, Gary DeMar admits that kosmos has a more extensive meaning than oikoumene. However, nowhere in his article does he admit that kosmos means the Adamic creation– that is, the entire physical globe. DeMar only says that it is a “word that can have a more global meaning.” This is by way of reluctant consent. Because of his preterist localization of the Great Commission, the Great Tribulation, and the second coming, DeMar is unable to claim universality for the word kosmos.

   But a simple look at its usage in the New Testament Scriptures supports a universal meaning. Take John 1: 10: “He was in the world (kosmos), and the world (kosmos) was made by him, and the world (kosmos) knew Him not.” The world created by Christ is certainly the Adamic world, and not the world defined by the boundaries of the ancient Roman empire. Hear what Paul says: “God that made the world (kosmos), and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth (ge), dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 17: 24). This surely implies universality. See also Matt. 13: 38; Luke 9: 25; John 4: 42; Romans 3: 6, 19; 5: 12-13; 1 Cor. 5: 10; 6: 2; 2 Cor. 5: 19; Gal. 6: 14; ; 1 Tim. 1: 15; 1 Peter 5: 9; 2 Peter 1: 4; 1 John 2: 2; 5: 19.

   Enough evidences can be adduced from Scripture to prove that kosmos signifies the world as created by God, and is not limited by first-century geographical concepts. ON the other hand, oikoumene does have a more technical sense, signifiying the world as inhabited by men. Whether its meaning, however, may be consistently restricted to the first-century Roman empire, is rather questionable.

   Citing Matthew 24: 14, DeMar alleges that Christ used oikoumene instead of kosmos, because He wished to show that the Great Commission would have a localized fulfillment within the time-frame of the first-century generation. Then to bolster his assertion, DeMar grabs hold of the typical audience-relevance argument, and writes: “Notice that also Jesus tells His disciples that the things outlined in Matthew 24 will happen to them. Jesus makes this point by His continual use of the second person plural ‘you.’ “

   Now let us back up for a moment, and take a closer look at the word oikoumene. We’ll suppose that it means “the Roman empire of the first century.” But if DeMar should insist on a consistent usage, he’ll be forced to concede that Preterism contains grave flaws. For the geographical limits of oikoumene, while they fit his concept of the Great Commission, are in another sense not strict enough to support his localized view of the parousia.

   In Acts 17: 31, for example, Paul tells the Athenians that the habitable world (oikoumene) is about to be judged. Then, in Luke 21: 26, we read that prior to Christ’s second advent in glory, “men’s hearts will fail them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the habitable world (oikoumene): for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.” Likewise, when speaking of the tribulation, John calls it an “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world (oikoumene), to try them that are dwelling on the earth (ge)” (Rev. 3: 10).

   Here is where DeMar becomes snared by his own hermeneutics. For if oikoumene signifies the first-century Roman empire, within which confines the Great Commission was carried out, then the above texts would force us to admit, for the sake of consistency, that the tribulation preceding Christ’s second advent must cover the same geographical territory. At least it should be comparable in extent: else there is no such thing as a static definition of oikoumene. It is on this last score, however, that Preterism breaks down. Which is doubtless why DeMar, reluctant to have this brought out, reverts to his audience-relevance argument.

   But even this argument proves nothing more than a surface evasion. For while Christ used the second person plural when addressing His audience, a consistent application of DeMar’s own method reveals the audience to be much broader than the four disciples to whom Christ spoke. To show what we mean, hearken to what Christ says: “They shall deliver YOU up to be afflicted, and shall kill YOU” (Matt. 24: 9). But speaking of later events He says, “When YOU, therefore, see the abomination of desolation,” etc.

   Now it is clear that if Christ’s teachings were restricted to His immediate audience, as DeMar asserts, then Christ contradicted Himself. If they were to be killed first, how was it possible for them to see the abomination of desolation? It is obvious that Christ’s audience embraces a larger group of individuals. Addressing this group, Christ says that some will be killed, whereas others will live to see the abomination of desolation. Identifying the larger, transcendental audience is essential to a correct exegesis of the text. Instead of doing this, however, DeMar allows his preconceived view of “this generation” to determine the scope of Christ’s message. But this makes a consistent interpretation of oikoumene impossible.

   Let’s lay the matter out. If Christ was speaking exclusively to a first-century audience, then there had to have been a first-century tribulation co-extensive with the territory covered by the Great Commission. For DeMar already fixed the meaning of oikoumene as pertaining to the geography of the Roman empire. But as he cannot give evidence of a tribulation that widespread, he drops further examination of the word, and brings in some collateral argument to boost his thesis.

   Let us be honest with the text, however, and admit that DeMar’s definition of oikoumene proves the very opposite of his assertion. For its contextual usage in Luke 21: 26 and Rev. 3: 10 extends the Great Tribulation (an event immediately followed by Christ’s parousia) beyond the limits authorized by Preterist interpretation. DeMar’s eagerness to localize and restrict the parousia by arguing for a limited fulfillment of the Great Commission produces a parallel inconsistency which falsifies the very concept he sets out to prove. Like Frankenstein’s monster, it threatens to destroy its maker.

   If oikoumene signifies the world as inhabited by men, then it may apply to a geographical area much larger than the Roman empire. Its extent may, in fact, cover the Adamic world. Therefore, when Christ says: “And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (oikoumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24: 14), it is not esential that we interpret His words in any first-century sense. Only the events themselves will determine when the Commission is fulfilled, and the end of the age is come.

   Taking the phrase “all nations,” however, DeMar argues that the term often has a limited geographical application. He cites eleven examples from the Old Testament and the New, in which terms like “all the nations” and “all the earth” are used in localized, and not a universal, sense. However, DeMar apparently does not see that these are merely examples of synecdochical usage. Synecdoche (of the whole) is a literary device in which the whole is put for the part. An example may be found in Genesis 6: 12: “And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt: for all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth.” Another instance is seen in Matthew 3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.”

   Nobody would be so rash as to assume that because Noah and his family were not included in the phrase “all flesh,” they therefore were not flesh. Nor would anyone assert that Judean residents who failed to go out to meet John Baptist were not residents of Judea. But this would be the logical result of accepting Gary DeMar’s thesis. On the other hand, if one identifies synecdochical usage when it occurs, the discrepencies vanish away. Synecdoche is a figure of speech which can be readily identified.

   Contrary to DeMar’s assertions, the Bible preserves a very extensive notion of geography. Moses was chosen by God to be the world’s first historian, and as such he chroncled the dispersion of the Gentiles in language that leaves little room for allegations of geographical ignorance. Read Genesis 10: 1-5. That the Hebrews also had knowledge of lands far beyond the ken of the earliest cartographers, may be seen in passages like Jeremiah 25: 15-26, as also Isaiah 49: 12, where the prophet mentions China.

   Of course, Preterists often adopt the rationalistic argument that the ancients thought the earth was flat, and that therefore we must read “flat earth” concepts into the Holy Scriptures. However, this outright denies the inspired authorship of the Bible. On the contrary, some of the ancients believed that the world was round. And this accounts for their speculations regarding the antipodes. (see Lactantius, Div. Inst. III. xxiv; Hippol. Ref. I. v). Where did they derive their knowledge? Quite possibly, from the Hebrew prophets and sages, to whom the oracles of God were committed.

   In light of all the above facts, we find that Gary DeMar’s arguments of a “limited geography” are completely off-the-wall, as well as unwarranted by Scripture. Because of his Preterist presuppositions, he has little choice but to adopt such arguments. When the evidence is carefully weighed, however, we arrive at quite opposite conclusions. In fact, we are prepared to dogmatically assert that whenever the doctrines of Christian salvation are involved, trerms such as kosmos, ge, oikoumene, are to be understood in their Adamic and universal sense.

   As sin is universal, so is the need for salvation. The revealed purpose of the Great Commission is to spread the message of Christ’s salvation to all nations under heaven. Far from being exhausted in the first century, we see this as being incomplete in our own day. Until this great commission has been exhaustively and comprehensively fulfilled, we are justified in claiming that “the end is not yet.” Until the witness is complete, Christ’s second coming remains a future event. And though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel than that which we have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1: 8).

Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 1)

 In his article, “Limited Geography and Biblical Interpretation,” Preterist teacher Gary DeMar sets out to localize Jesus Christ’s second coming by “proving” that geographical terminology used in Scripture was based on a first-century understanding of the globe. DeMar writes: “The first rule of Biblical interpretation is understanding a text in terms of its original setting and audience, always asking the question, How would those who first picked up copies of the Gospels and epistles have understood what they were reading?“

  DeMar then quotes from Lewis Berkhof’s “Principles of Biblical Interpretation,” in which the author claims that “the interpreter must place himself on the standpoint of the author” and that he (the interpreter) must guard against “transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century.”

   This is the whole premise of DeMar’s argument. And we submit that his premise would be correct if the Scriptures were written by fallible men, and not by the immutable and all-knowing Holy Spirit. It is on this point, however, that DeMar’s reasoning breaks down. Like most rationalists, he supports his position by taking arms against the Divine inspiration of the Bible. But when a closer investigation is brought to bear upon the geographical terminology of the Bible, DeMar’s Preteristic assumptions crumble into nothing.

   Obviously, the interpreter must place himself on the standpoint of the author. Who would deny it? But the real question is, who is the author of the Bible? If the Bible was written by men whose limited understanding of geography has been preserved in its pages, then we must assign to Scripture a measure of fallibility. But if the men who wrote Scripture merely acted as amanuenses, writing as the Spirit prompted them, then DeMar’s argument is motivated by a false premise. The apostle Peter put it correctly when he wrote: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1: 20-21).

   I would imagine this falsifies the notion of a limited geography. For we believe that what holds true of prophecy also applies to statements of fact. That the Scripture was transcribed by men all will agree. But that it was written under Divine guidance, so as to make its record infallible, seems to be contested by DeMar. The dispute comes into play when the reader accepts his caveat not to read 21st century geographical knowledge into words such as kosmos, oikoumene, and ge. Well, we ask, why not? If the domain of God’s sovereignty is the same now as it was in the first century, what prohibits us? Is God’s knowledge of geography limited by human understanding? If so, then God cannot be omniscient. And therefore, He cannot be God. Who would carry it so far?

   When investigating the geography of Scripture, we must determine who is the author employing such terminology. Because Preterists insist that Jesus Christ’s second advent was fulfilled in A.D. 70, they are forced to localize His coming to the region of Jerusalem. In equating His parousia with the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70, they are left without any other choice. Now the geographical terminology must be juggled to accord with their pre-conceived conclusion that Christ did in fact return in A.D. 70. Therefore, the authorship of the Holy Spirit is discredited, that an element of human fallibility may be read into the text.

   But we ask, how far does this fallibility extend? Does it extend to all Scripture? Or is it exclusive to the New Testament? Suppose that the term ge (earth) always means “the land of Palestine,” as Preterists popularly contend. Well, the writers of the New Testament were Jews, and unto them were committed the oracles of God. Moses was chosen by God to chronicle the history of the world, from its very beginnings. In Gen. 1: 1, we read, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth (eretz).”

   Here the usage of eretz is universal, and not localized. For if God created the land of Palestine alone, then we must assign the creation of the rest of the world to another and greater god. But what meant Moses when he wrote, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth (eretz), and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (eretz)” (Gen: 1: 26). If it obviously the Adamic creation he is speaking of, over which God exercises supreme dominion.

   Now the Greek word ge bears precisely the same sense as the Hebrew eretz. But we ask: did Paul have less knowledge than Moses, when he told the idolaters of Lystra to “turn from these vanities unto the Living God, which made heaven, and earth (ge), and the sea, and all things that are therein” (Acts 14: 15)? Was Paul’s geography limited when he preached that God now commandeth “all men everywhere to repent because He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the habitable world (oikoumene) in righteousness, by that Man Whom He hath ordained” (Acts 17: 30-31)?

   And what meant Christ, when He taught His disciples to pray: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done in earth (ge) as it is in heaven (Mat. 6: 10)? Was our Lord’s geography limited? Was He referring to the land of Palestine? Of course not. Christ used the word ge (earth) in a universal and Adamic sense; which can be easily verified. For example: “But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth (ge) to forgive sins… Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house” (Matt. 9: 6). See also Matt. 16: 19; 17: 25; Acts 13: 47; Heb. 11: 15; 1 John 5: 8, etc.

   As for eretz, we agree that it is sometimes used in a localized sense. But it more often refers to the sphere over which God exercises moral sovereignty.

   Psalm 33: 14: “From the place of His habitation, He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth (eretz).

   Psalm 115: 16: “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth (eretz) hath He given to the children of men.”

   Compare with Psalm 2: 8; 72: 19; 96: 1; 138: 4; Isaiah 37: 16; 49: 6; 54: 4; Jeremiah 16: 19; Micah 4: 13; Zechariah 6: 5; 14: 9, etc.

   Examining all of the cited passages (which are too numerous to quote in full), we find that God certainly has very extensive notions of geography. And this helps us to determine exactly what Christ signified when He gave the Great Commission. “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (ge). Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28: 18-20).

   As a Preterist, Gary DeMar believes that the Great Commission was fulfilled by A.D. 70, and that the end of the age occurred with the destruction of the temple. We believe that this is a sad, sick error, and can easily prove it by asking DeMar what He thinks Christ meant when He said: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth“? If DeMar agrees that ge is used in a universal sense, then he must concede that the the discipling of all nations has reference to Christ’s sphere of authority, which is universal; and that the end of the age terminates not with the destruction of the Jewish temple, but with the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the whole world (kosmos).

   In His unfolding of the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13: 24-30; 37-43) , Christ said: “The field is the world (kosmos)” and “the harvest if the end of the age.” Gary DeMar believes that the harvest occurred in A.D. 70. Therefore, he sees the end of the age as occurring at that time. But if this is the case, how are we to understanding the usage of kosmos? In a strictly localized sense, argues DeMar. But what did Christ mean when He said: “For God so loved the world (kosmos) that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3: 16).

   Did Christ signify that God only loved the Roman empire, and not poor benighted Amazonians who would be born at a future time? Again, when Christ said: “As long as I am in the world (kosmos), I am the light of the world (kosmos)” (John 9: 5); did Christ mean to say that He was the light of the first-century Roman world? Or did He mean the world as fallen in Adam? If the latter is true, then the end of the age cannot have occurred in A.D. 70, for the wheat and tares were not yet ripe to harvest. Christ is still sowing His wheat, and the devil his tares. Therefore, the Great Commission is still in force, and the end of the age is yet future.

Continue To Part 2

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.”

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.

In Defense of the Apostles’ Creed (Part 2)

   In the present article, I’d like to continue clearing up some of the statements that John Riffe has made concerning the Apostles’ Creed.  It seems to be his intention to cast doubt on the creed in a number of ways: firstly, by placing in question its authorship; secondly, by noting a lack of urgency in the Parousia expectation; thirdly, by claiming that it was amended and embellished at divers periods of the church’s history; and fourthly, by pointing out the fact that it was never equated with the word of God.  Although John has written some great material in the past, and while I appreciate his concerns, I do not subscribe to any method of argument which depends on the instillation of doubt in the minds of readers.  In every event we must be watchful and diligent in our maintenance of evangelical standards.  Let us beware of casting shadows.  The children of God have not to do with darkness, but with light. 

   Satan used doubt-instilling methods when he enticed Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit.  Tempting her to question the veracity of God’s word, he pointed out the desirability of the fruit itself– not telling her, however, that the good and evil were deceptively intermixed.  The same spirit, and even the same modus operandi, underlies Hyper Preterism.  In order for Hyper-Preterists to get others to eat from their tree, they rely on a number of devilish tactics.  One of these involves planting doubt in the minds of God’s people as to the true meaning of the text.  “Does the word of God really say that?”

   They tell us that the Bible must be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense– notwithstanding that all the prophecies concerning our Savior’s first advent and Passion are clear and unambiguous.  And yet the H.P.’s would like us to believe that all statements concerning the second coming are unclear and elusive!  That is just one method they use.  Another is to make themselves appear progressive, as it were, and on the “cutting edge” of theology. They pride themselves on their supposed ability to correctly read the texts.  And yet their views cannot be found anywhere in the history of the church!  Obviously, all such methods derive force from an evolutionary theory of doctrinal development.  But the Holy Spirit does not work according to man’s theory of evolution.  Let us pause and remember where evolution all started– at the Tower of Babel.  It is essentially a product of the devil.

   But Preterism and other heretical systems rely upon it.  For they have no historicity to back up their claims.  Their teachers plead for a “solo Scriptura” understanding.  But the Scriptures do not speak for themselves.  They must be interpreted.  The evolutionists are not really saying that the Scriptures must be preferred, but that their interpretations must be preferred.  That erroneous concept, however, has caused many to err from the truth.  And I’m afraid that John has fallen into the snare.  For a brief period I myself held a similar view.  But I soon realized the flawed foundation on which it rests.  For having been led by the Spirit to know that God’s purposes never fail, I soon discerned that the doctrines of theological evolution and isolated understanding are absolutely impossible.  Let me use language that most “Reformed” Preterists will understand.  If Hyper-Preterism is the truth, then God is not truly sovereign.  If it took Christians 2,000 years to arrive at a correct system of doctrine, then the church can never really have been “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3: 15).  This would also imply that orthodoxy was preceded by 1,900 years of heresy!  Are one man’s teachings really enough to topple down centuries of church tradition?  Think again.  Such views are blasphemous and heretical, and must be rejected by every true child of God. 

   Besides, they are bogus and irrational.  And those who cling to them are equally irrational.  They are not to be listened to, but patiently withstood.  While I am entirely against the heresy of Hyper-Preterism, I think that theological evolution and headstrong pride are the real enemies.   And their popular reception would certainly account for the wholesale rejection of creeds and confessions.  One who thinks he has ‘advanced’ above all others will disdain to follow the tried and tested paths, and hew out his own deceptive trails. But if a Christian separates himself from the great cloud of witnesses in the church, what is his true status in the body?  This question will be a challenge to many.  For it is clear to me that one who contemns Christ’s body has ostracized himself therefrom.  He or she has fallen way from the true vine, and must be grafted back in again.  Only faith will enable us to stand in Christ.  But if we have not faith, we cannot be saved.  For it is by faith alone that we have access to the grace wherein we stand (Romans 5: 2). 

   That others may not succumb to the deadly fate of apostasy, I have thought it expedient to counteract, as best I can, their insidious poison with the antidote of truth.  Let us hope the medicine proves effective.  Of course, the lack of spiritual power evinced by Preterism should tell us that it is not the authorized Gospel.  And really, on a whole Preterism has had a poor history.  It is interesting to note that, in spite of the  push of academia during the 19th century to promote the doctrines of Preterism, the movement was completely wiped out within a short number of years.  Every time Preterism has made an advance, Futurism has driven it back into the darkness where it belongs.  I believe that Preterism, in its protean manifestations, will always fall under pure evangelical Christianity. 

   But let us get back to John’s contention that the creed was embellished many times throughout the years.  It is true that the creed has come down to us in a number of forms.  Yet none of these forms are contradictory.  Rufinus, writing in 390 A.D., speaks of slight additions made to the creed by different churches.  Nevertheless, all of the versions of the creed have come down to us agreeing in statement in structure.  All affirm the session of the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.  All affirm His coming thence to judge the living and the dead.  All affirm a future resurrection of the flesh.  These seem to be the articles with which John has the biggest problem.  Because he has accepted the indefensible notion that Christ returned in A.D. 70, he has cast away the creed as erroneous.  I, on the other hand, affirm the authority of the creed. Never has it been more needful for the children of God to cleave to the one true faith.

   John is correct that the Nicene Creed differs somewhat from the Apostles’ Creed.  Why?  Because the former represents the Eastern church, which was at the time of its ratification (325 A.D.) being overrun by the heresy of Arianism.  This creed contains clear statements regarding the homoousion, or co-essence of the Father and Son, which the Arian teachings denied.  Thus, the creed was only enlarged as a measure to defend against heresy.  The issue of embellishment does not prove that the creeds are unreliable.  It only shows that creeds have, in all ages of church history, been necessary in combating different forms of false doctrine.  Heresies have always existed in the church.  It is important to have some external standard whereby we may test whether a man’s doctrines be true or false.  If there is no other standard but the Bible alone, then all the heretics that ever vexed the church must stand on equal ground with those who maintained the true faith.  This is what I mean when I accuse Hyper-Preterists of dragging the truth down to lowest possible standards.  Let no man blur the distinctions between good and evil.  The truth must always be exalted.  And it will be!

   One of the important amendments made to the Apostles’ Creed is the clause adopted by the Church of Aquileia, “Hujus carnis resurrectionem“– “the resurrection of this flesh.”  Rufinus, the creed’s earliest expositor, explains this to us: “Our church, in teaching the faith, instead of “the Resurrection of the flesh,” as the creed is delivered in other churches, guardedly adds the pronoun ‘this’– ‘the resurrection of this flesh.’  ‘Of this,’ that is, no doubt, of the person who rehearses the creed, making the sign of the cross upon his forehead, while he says the word, that each believer may know that his flesh, if he have kept it clean from sin, will be a vessel of honor, useful to the Lord, prepared for every good work; but if defiled by sins, that it will be a vessel of wrath destined to destruction.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, xliii).

   That is a case where embellishment became necessary to more clearly define the faith.  Note that the heresy denying the resurrection of the flesh arose at an early epoch of the church’s history.  The early church fathers are in general agreement that Simon Magus (Acts 8: 9 ff.) and his disciple Menander were the authors of the Gnostic heresy which denied the resurrection.  So it is no wonder to find, at a very early date, true teachers doing all they could to combat this error.  The creed came in very a propos to their efforts, for it provided a sure standard whereby a man’s teachings could be tested by laymen and ministers alike.

   It would appear that John Riffe denies the resurrection of the flesh.  Wherefore it is only natural that he should deny the creed.  For if he accepted the creed, his system of theology would be destroyed.  Thus, I cannot take seriously his implication that the Creed must be rejected because it was embellished at divers times.  These are mere excuses made to break the authority of creeds, and yet the arguments John is using are so frail that they crumble at the slightest touch.  To be fair, however, I will ask John if he can show me one instance in which any of the fundamental articles were changed.  If he can, then I may well agree with him.  But let’s be honest with ourselves.  The Apostles’ Creed has always been the Apostles’ Creed, and always will be, to the world’s end!

   John’s fourth remark was that the Creed was never equated with the word of God.  This is correct.  But neither should we expect it to be.  And when we think it over, we must concede that it was an act of wisdom not to include it in Scripture.  For if it were part of Scripture, it would now be subject to false interpretation by heretics!  Frankly, I accept the traditional view that the Creed is a direct product of the blessed Apostles.  And only those of the Higher Critical (that is, evolutionary) persuasion will seriously doubt its Apostolic authorship.  Rufinus, in recording its history, informs us why the Creed was never committed to writing:

   “It is called ‘Indicium’ or ‘Signum,’ a sign or token, because, at that time, as the Apostle Paul says, and as is revealed in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the vagabond Jews, pretending to be Apostles of Christ, went about preaching for gain’s sake or their belly’s sake, naming the name of Christ indeed, but not delivering their message according to the exact traditional lines.  The Apostles therefore prescribed this formulary as a sign or token by which he who preached Christ truly, according to the Apostolic rule, might be recognized.  Finally, they say that in civil wars, since the armor of both sides is alike, and the language the same, and the custom and mode of warfare the same, each general, to guard against treachery, is wont to deliver to his soldiers a distinct symbol or watchword– in Latin ‘signum’ or ‘indicium’–so that if one is met with, of whom it is doubtful to which side he belongs, being asked the symbol (watchword), he discloses whether he is friend or foe.  And for this reason, the tradition continues, the Creed is not written on paper or parchment, but is retained in the hearts of the faithful, that it may be certain that no one has learnt it by reading, as is sometimes the case with unbelievers, but by tradition from the Apostles.” (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, ii).

   So, according to the statements of Rufinus, the creed is a necessary aid in combating false teachers.  It was not included in Scripture, because it was not to be read, but to be memorized.  We must remember also, that the Creed was for centuries used as a baptismal formula, and in catechetical exercises.  I remember years ago, when a child, having to recite the Creed during catechism.  This ancient tradition goes back all the way to the days of the early church.  And no one ever supposed that its absence from the Divine canon places its authority in question.  Quite the contrary.  The Reformers, far from denying the authority of the Creed, considered it a necessary part of Christian instruction.  For instance, Section II of Luther’s Small Catechism (A.D. 1529) states that the creed “should be clearly and simply explained to every household by the head of the family.”  The Heidelberg Catechism (A.D. 1563), asks (Question 22): “What is necessary for a Christian to believe?” The answer is: “All that is promised us in the Gospel, which the articles of our catholic, undoubted Christian faith teach us in sum.”  Question twenty-three reads: “What are these articles?”  In answer, the respondent recites the Apostles’ Creed.

   The French Confession of faith (A.D. 1559) likewise considers the creeds to be authoritative.  Also, in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563), the authority of creeds is expressed as follows: “The three creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”  Creedal authority is also enforced in the Anglican Catechism of 1549, as well as the Westminster Shorter Catechism of 1647.  It is a base misconception that the Reformers, in working to cleanse the true faith from the accretions and corruptions of Romanism, ever intended to do away with the Creeds and Confessions.  This notion, which is entirely false, has been repeatedly exposed by Roderick Edwards.  Only in recent years have Evangelical Christians sought to cast away the creeds.  And this practice has become popular, not among traditional mainline Protestant groups, but among cults such as the “Churches of Christ,” whose ministers claim to hold the pure faith, but end up impeaching all men (and each other) as liars.

To be continued…

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.