In an appendix to his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (1999), Keith A. Mathison writes an article titled “A Brief Critique of Full Preterism”. It is natural for him to address this topic, as a large number of preterists, including Mathison himself, identify themselves as postmillennialists, though these (and he) are “partial-preterists” who do not go as far as “full preterists” in claiming that all eschatological events in the Bible were fulfilled in the events of AD 70. (the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies). Instead, partial preterists typically view the events up to Revelation 19:11ff or Revelation 20 as fulfilled, but the remainder as being “still to come”.†
After defining full preterism using “accomplished and applied” language from Edward Stevens, Mathison presents what he considers to be the strengths of Full Preterism:
- The desire to maintain “the veracity of Jesus and the apostles.” Full Preterists “demand an interpretation of the Bible which takes the language of imminence seriously and which strives for consistency.”
- The “constant push for exegetical answers to perplexing biblical questions.”
Mathison then spends considerably more space discussing what he presents as the weaknesses of Full Preterism, but first states that “a comprehensive evaluation and critique of full preterism would require a book.” In a footnote, he points readers to Kenneth Gentry’s still-unpublished The Triumph of Death: A Critique of Hyper-Preterism; either Gentry has given up on this endeavor or the material was reworked into his contribution to Mathison’s later collection of essays, When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (2004).
Mathison focuses on four points in his critique:
- Attacks upon the Creeds of the Church. Mathison’s point here is that the Holy Spirit guided the establishment of the basic rules of faith (creeds) that make up orthodox Christianity. He claims that full preterists reject this authority of the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of sola Scriptura, that is, only using the Biblical texts to inform their position. He counter argues that sola Scriptura “means that the Bible in the context of Christian orthodoxy is the sole, ultimate touchstone for faith and practice” (quoting Andrew Sandlin, emphasis mine). In other words, creedal authority must guide (and limit) Biblical interpretation.
- Eternal Sin. Full preterists place the destruction of the power of sin at the Cross, with this destruction “progressively worked out in the present age.” The problem, according to Mathison, is that “the present age” continues forever — by extension, sin dwells forever since there is no future judgment event whereby sin itself is eliminated from the universe. Mathison asks, “Does the Bible really teach that God is going to allow rebellion against His sovereign authority (i.e., sin) to continue forever?”
- The Millennium. Mathison believes that it is inconsistent for full preterists to hold the imminent time texts of the New Testament to literal fufillment, but a long time text like the millennium is interpreted to be only 40 years (AD30-70).
- Progressive Victory. Like the issue of eternal sin, Mathison finds exception with full preterists’ interpretation of texts like Matthew 13, Daniel 2 and Ezekiel 47, which depict a growing kingdom, as being of the present age. He finds end points in each of those texts’ images, but argues that full preterism doesn’t allow a future end point in the present age (unlike postmillennialism), rather, the victory of the kingdom in an ongoing process that never ends and is never consummated.
Mathison asks some fair questions and I’ll look forward to some discussion of those here or on other blogs. It was perhaps to be expected that he would play the creed card first in his critique, as it is the strongest argument against a viewpoint that denies that Christ will come again, as well as any hope in a future resurrection of the body. Mathison concludes his critique by returning to the creedal issue, expanding his thoughts on the authority of the creeds vs. the right of the individual to decide “what aspects of orthodoxy are truly orthodox,” thereby transferring authority from the creeds of the corporate church to the viewpoints of the individual. He restates that full preterists deny the accepted doctrines of a future, visible return by Jesus and a future physical resurrection, then ends by quoting 20 ecumenical and denominational creeds that say as much.
My interest would be in a critique of full preterism that doesn’t play the creed card, but sticks strictly to the Biblical text. If full preterism’s strength is in exegetical argument, then the best way to argue against it is to make an honest exegetical rebuttal of full preterism.
* * * * *
†Late-date (Revelation written in ~AD 95) partial-preterists will be more likely to hold a view that only events up to Revelation 19:11 have been fulfilled because their interpretation is not constrained to the Emperor Nero as held by early-date (~AD 65) preterists. Instead, the beasts are the Roman Empire and its emperors, and by extension into history, any geo-political entity that opposes the Christian Church. Christ on the white horse is seen to be currently conquering this “beast” by His Word, the sharp sword from His mouth. Early-date partial-preterists see the conquered beast of Revelation 19:17ff as Emperor Nero and are more likely to see the dragon/Satan as currently bound and Christ reigning with the saints during the millennium.
22 Comments
(Author’s warning of bias: I am a partial-preterist)
The problem I have with Mathison’s view of the creedal card is that his language is essentially saying that creeds are infallible. If the Holy Spirit guided the creation of the creeds, would they not be infallible? Don’t get me wrong, I affirm creedal Christianity, insofar as they agree with what the Scriptures teach. The full-preterists (and your blog entry) have a valid concern here. Convince me of your position from the Scripture (which I obviously am, since I hold the position).
I think you hit the nail on the head with:
“If full preterism’s strength is in exegetical argument, then the best way to argue against it is to make an honest exegetical rebuttal of full preterism.”
I like the book “A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism” because it contains essays from several eschatological views. Again, Mathison writes the first essay on creeds. I don’t remember him using language in that particular essay that alarmed me to the point of thinking he was putting creeds on par with scripture, but it has been awhile since I read it. I would have to go back and read it again.
Either way, if you plan to refute full preterism, and want to use a creedal argument (which can be made in a way that is useful, but not necessarily the end-all argument), at least put it as one of the ending arguments, after the work of exegesis.
Well…You could be like me….A creedal Full Preterist. I certainly affirm the creeds in that they are simply asserting what the scriptures proclaimed. That is…a future coming in judgment. And so since most if not all of the books of the New Testament were written before the fall of Jerusalem, then they were therefore speaking of a future event.
Which means that I can be a Full Preterist that affirms everything that the creeds affirm.
Pmike
@Bryan: thanks for the comments. I wasn’t raised in a Church that regularly declared the creeds (not the same as denying them), so I don’t have the intellectual connection to them that many do. When I did join a church that used a spoken liturgy with a creed, my initial reaction was negative in that it just seemed like an exercise in memorization. I definitely came from the camp of what Mathison describes as “individualism”, so it’s been an interesting education the past 5-10 years learning about orthodox Christianity.
To this point, I’ve held off getting When Shall These Things Be? if only because I thought it overlapped some of the other books I have and the content was reviewed as variable from author to author, Gentry of course being most solid. Maybe I should find a copy.
@Pmike: that works if you hold that the creeds were written in the same historical context as the books of the NT. But if the creeds were written later, then the historical context is different, e.g. post AD 70, and should, if full preterism is correct, reflect Christ and the resurrection as accomplished events. The earliest creed that Mathison cites is “The Old Roman Creed”, written in the late second century…
I forgot to mention Seriah’s ‘The End of All Things’.
The first time I read it, I recall finding it quite conclusive. However, I’ve since revisited it and it didn’t have the same effect. Anyway, it’s the most exegetical of the works against FP that I’ve read.
Seriah is a partial pretersist, though he goes somewhat more full than others. That is nice, but it just leaves big questions about his consistency.
He includes a chapter on the Creeds, but I can cope with just one! However, his language throughout is fairly caustic throughout.
Like all doctrinal issues, when not taken with the entire council of the revealed word of God, there will be heresies.
Arminianism leads to the heresy of open theism
Calvinism leads to the heresy of hyper-calvinism
Dispensational Premillenialism leads to John Hagee
Preterism leads to the heresy of hyper-preterism
My homie, Gene Cook, Jr. recently did a show with a former (full, hyper, unorthodox) preterist [Ed. Roderick Edwards]
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/12/leaving-full-preterism-tnm-896-122907.html
Heaven help us. Roderick Edwards was infamous in the years he was a FP. He’s a bitter man with some major chips on his shoulder. Not only that, but he hasn’t put forth any exegetical reasons for leaving FP. All of a sudden, he’s appealing to tradition and creeds. Quite frankly, most FP’s are glad he’s gone…
ElShaddai,
Bryan (above) makes two great points: (1) If the Holy Spirit guided the creation of the creeds, they would indeed be infallible; and (2) if not infallible, then one should only affirm the creeds “insofar as they agree with what the Scriptures teach.” Even the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that creeds can and have erred in the past.
Here are some interesting questions to ponder for those who rely on the creeds to establish doctrine:
(1) What makes a particular creed authoritative?
(2) If the partial preterist (or any futurist) position is correct, will not a creed proclaiming a future and final judgment no longer be considered authoritative upon completion of that Final Judgment? In other words, is it possible that a creed might accurately summarize what the Scriptures teach, but eventually become inaccurate with the passing of time (no pun intended)?
I think that second question is what PsychoMike was getting at, if I’m not mistaken.
And (3) What cultural background underlies any particular creed? That is to say, is a creed’s origin to be found in Hebrew thought, Greek thought, etc.? Clearly, one’s cultural and/or philisophical background (e.g., ANE thought, Platonism, etc.) could play a major part in one’s interpretation of Scripture and lead to a potential misunderstanding of Scripture’s intent. (And what could this mean for a church whose identity swung from primarily Hebrew to primarily Greek/Roman in a relatively short amount of time?)
Just some food for thought …
BTW, I applaud Bryan’s forthrightness. He’s the first partial preterist I’ve seen honestly wrestle with the “creedal problem.” He is also right in that exegetical refutation (of any position) is where the focus should be.
Best,
Mike
Mike wrote:
then one should only affirm the creeds “insofar as they agree with what the Scriptures teach.”
Yes, it seems that Mathison was advocating almost the opposite, that “one should only affirm Scripture insofar as it agrees with what the creeds say.”
I’m agreed on the timing of creedal fulfillment too. I understood Mike’s intent, that the creeds, or at least the seeds of them, could have had origins before AD 70. I was just pointing out that the earliest creedal statement that Mathison quoted was from 100 years later. If that was/is the earliest creedal statement, then you would expect that the creed would be written from a 2nd century perspective, not a pre AD 70 perspective.
A couple observations about Mathison’s critique:
1) Attacks upon the Creeds of the Church
“In other words, creedal authority must guide (and limit) Biblical interpretation.” Interesting concept. It’s just not scriptural.
2) Eternal Sin
“Does the Bible really teach that God is going to allow rebellion against His sovereign authority (i.e., sin) to continue forever?” Lemme see. Mathison is Reformed, right? What happened to God creating evil? He establishes evil, then changes his mind and yet some of his elect in the twenty-first century decide it’s so bad that it must have an end? I guess they see the need for a future cure of God’s schizophrenia. Another reason I’m not a Calvinist.
Beside that, this argument is an appeal to consequence.
3) The Millennium
This one makes me scratch my head. How can “this generation shall not pass” and “some of you standing here will not taste death” be taken not literally? As a postmillennialist, is he suggesting that it is reasonable to construe those statements with the end of a nearly two thousand year (and counting) time period?
4) Progressive Victory
The victory has been won. Isaiah 2 and Revelation 22:2 depict a continuing state of affairs in which the people of God co-exist with those outside the covenant (“the nations”).
Steve,
FP is not scriptural. If there is not limit to biblical interpretation then heresy creeps into the church. You then wind up with heretical movements like the JW’s, the LDS church, FP’s…
Did God really create evil? Or did he decree that evil would come to pass? Evil is not a material “creation”, God decrees all things and is immutable thus he does not “change his mind”. Another reason you are not a Calvinist is your use of stray man argumentation against it.
You do not understand the Reformed view of the millennium, either “post” or “amill”
Does context mean anything when reading Isaiah and Revelation?
Jesus,
Actually, I’m quoting a supralapsarian argument that I’ve heard. This view may not encompass all Reformed, but it is no straw man. My point could have been made about any lapsarian argument. So, to rephrase: God plans the Fall, then changes his mind and yet some of his elect in the twenty-first century decide it’s so bad that it must have an end?
supra or infra, it does not matter. you are still creating a straw man when you rephrase “God’s plan”. I ask you for any Reformed writer that makes such a claim as that of God changing His mind.
Jesus,
Reformed writers wouldn’t say God changes his mind, although Mathison’s argument implies this. That’s why I think the view is inconsistent. When someone claims on one hand that God ordained man’s sinfulness and then on the other that it’s unthinkable that he’d let it continue in perpetuity, it’s as though God changed his opinion on the matter. At the very least, it’s not logically or philosophically necessary that God would need to end it in the future if he ordained it in the first place, and that was Mathison’s argument.
But please don’t let this discussion turn into one of those Reformed vs. the rest of Christianity discussions. I’ve got posts related to Reformed theology on my site if you want to take it up there.
2) Eternal Sin
“Does the Bible really teach that God is going to allow rebellion against His sovereign authority (i.e., sin) to continue forever?”
Read Rev 22 carefully. You may notice some interesting things that may not have caught your eye before:
(1) Sin has a continued presence after the conclusion of the Millennium:
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (Rev 22:14-15, ESV; emphasis mine)
Only those within the city have been justified and are granted access to the Tree of Life. Those outside are unbelievers. According to all traditional millennial positions, there is no unbelief after the Millennium.
(2) There is still a need for healing after the Millennium concludes:
Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (Rev 22:1-2, ESV; emphasis mine)
According to all traditional millennial positions, there should be no need for healing, as sin and death (as traditionally understood) have been done away with at this point.
Could it be, then, that the concepts of the “new heavens/earth” and the “New Jerusalem” are actually symbolic of the New Covenant, i.e., the Body of Christ, the Church? When viewed from this perspective, all of the symbology in Rev 22 makes a ton of sense. If this is an ideal description of the Church’s role in the world, then there is no need to wait for a literal, physical fulfillment of these prophecies (cf. Luke 17:20-21).
Indeed, 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15 speak of a “new creation,” that is, our circumsicion of the heart, our rebirth from above, our new status in Christ. The 2 Corinthians passage is very good in describing what happens to the “old” (i.e., the Old Covenant, the old man): “The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” This is not some future, physical reality to which we aspire. It is a present, spiritual reality to which many of us long, but most of us do not realize is within our grasp here, today. All it takes is an open heart and a willingness to listen to the Spirit as He guides us from day to day.
The problem with the eternal sin complaint is that Mathison believes in the horrendous doctrine of everlasting conscious torment. So, in his scheme of things rebellious sinners exist forever.
The only difference is that Mathison’s rebellious sinners are being fried forever!
Jesús, if you’re going to criticise FP, wouldn’t it make sense – in this thread particularly – to do so on the basis of solid exegesis?
Steve asked, How can “this generation shall not pass” and “some of you standing here will not taste death” be taken not literally? As a postmillennialist, is he suggesting that it is reasonable to construe those statements with the end of a nearly two thousand year (and counting) time period?
How do you reconcile Jesus saying, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days: [...]” (Matt 24:29) with “Now concerning the day and hour no one knows [...] except the Father only” (Matt 24:36)? On one hand you seem to have Jesus laying out the chronology; on the other, he seems to be hedging a bit.
ElShaddai,
Great topic, I wish I could contribute but I am very weak when it comes to Eschatology. I do believe that Christ will return, and the rapture, but beyond that I have remained agnostic on this matter. Matthew 24:44; Acts 1:11; 1 Thess 4:13-18
“On one hand you seem to have Jesus laying out the chronology; on the other, he seems to be hedging a bit.”
With this sort of reading, that would be the case no matter what your eschatology were. However, Jesus did say, “No one knows” in the present tense; he was telling them to stay prepared. He did not say that no one would know or have advance warning, or else why would he give the disciples the “signs of the times”? Remember, Jesus told the disciples that they were his friends because he told them what he was up to (John 15:15). For this reason, he let them know that a “thief” was coming (Mt 24:43-44) and to be prepared. Those being punished for their wickedness wouldn’t know what hit them. Does this answer your question?
Is it simply like a Plumber saying they’ll be round to see you next week? You could then tell people, “he will definitely be here before the end of the month. In fact, some of you standing here will have pork chops again until he comes. I don’t know the exact day or hour, but when you see the white van pull up and here the clinking of tools, you’ll know that he is near.”
Um… put all of that into latin and it might sound a bit more theological!
Graham,
I don’t think the Jews back then had indoor plumbing and I’m pretty darn sure they didn’t eat pork chops. But I think I understand what you’re trying to say.
Oh, yeah … speaking of pork chops, what kind of Latin would you put that in? Heh heh.
I recently started a blog called Preterist Heresy that you may find interesting. Entire blog to reveal the holes in this system. Feel free to check it out when you have time.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/