Dear Greg:
I wrote a message – as usual it was rather lengthy – however very logical and factual, or at least, so say I. My wife read it and said it put her to sleep. I trashed it! And so, I am trying afresh to write something ‘interesting’ of which I will likely fail as it is difficult to make exciting what I personally already find both boring and shocking. I am bored by such inconsistent and foolish arguments coming from men like Gentry but also shocked that such ‘dangerous’ arguments come from men like Gentry. Here I repeat his ‘proof’ against Preterism.
Creedal Failure
First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any second Advent in A.D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A.D. 70. It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A.D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?
“No Creed Allows” Interesting terminology. He said it Twice
First, let me point out that this use, or should I say misuse, of ‘Church Fathers’ (so called) is not Reformed nor is it Protestant in nature but rather Papist or Pharisaical.
Matthew 15: 3 “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?”
When Luther left the papal system, he was contrary to their creeds and counsels in favor of Scripture Alone or what has continued to be decreed in Latin even in our day Sola Scriptura
There are many presuppositions within Gentry’s ‘Creedal Failure’ comment. I could spend pages speaking to these assumptions. Do the creeds and ‘fathers’ represent what the entire Christian population believed? Is it heresy to believe the Bible teaches something contrary to the ‘tradition of the fathers’? Must the scriptures be interpreted according to what the church has ‘always believed’? Then Christ was in trouble and…
If so then Gentry himself is in trouble!
Postmillennial teaching believes that the return of Christ will not be imminent until after a millennial rule and dominion of the church is seen on earth. This rule is supposed to be very long covering more of the totality of history than not before the supposed ‘end’ of the world period. Also, many believe that the Jews as an ethnic group have yet to be ‘brought in’ and that the “fullness of the gentiles’ is yet future and prior to the second coming and resurrection. This is a denial of the immanency taught by many ‘church fathers’ who simply mimicked what Paul taught. They were wrong; Paul was right – end of story. In Gentry’s book “He Shall Have Dominion” written in 1992 he states the following concerning the Postmillennial denial of the ‘imminent’ return of Christ:
The New Testament teaches, however, that the Lord’s glorious, bodily return will be in the distant and unknowable future. (emphasis by Gentry) It has not been imminent and will not be datable. (emphasis again by Gentry) Theologically “distinctive to [postmillennialism] is the denial of the imminent physical return” of Christ. (Gentry quoted Greg Bahnsen in this last portion contained within quotations, this is found on page 331 of the edition that I own.)
So while Gentry admits that his own eschatology is contrary to what can be proven by studying the writings of the early Christians – that being the “soon return” of Christ – suddenly these writings are authoritative when refuting Preterism. Irenaeus This is very selective argumentation. I may have mentioned that the first time I ran into this kind of ‘thinking’ was when a minister requested that I read Irenaeus to prove Premillennialism, only to later hear him say “I did not tell you to believe everything he wrote” when I confronted him on some of the other extremely bizarre things he had written. Irenaeus believed that Christ lived top be 50 years old for one and that grapes the size of watermelons would grow on earth during the expected ‘millennium’.
Should someone admit that no truth can be gleaned from scripture that has not yet been recorded in creeds and traditions then are not even “Dispensational Premillennialists” views also felled? Dispensationalists state that while the church has not traditionally upheld their position and that while it is relatively new dating back only to the 1800’s, yet it is scriptural and therefore correct. Selective use of the assumed accuracy and authority of creeds and confessions is repugnant even to the rules of logic, but worse, it flies in the face of the Reformed movement period. How dare men rebel against the Church of Rome and her decrees and councils if God had intended to assure us that the ‘church’ would be led into all truth in this following verse:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The Church of Rome assured themselves of being authorized to decree truth by the very same verse. They boldly spoke on Christ’s behalf. When men attempt to bolster the ‘authority’ of ‘church fathers’ and creeds they often quote John 16:13 as ‘proof’ that Jesus assured us that the very Holy Spirit of God would not allow the ‘church’ in general to fail to understand His word aright. They then however explain that the Church of Rome that ruled the roust for more than 1/2 of New Testament history was an exception. They themselves are not, of course. You see, the tradition of the fathers is alright as long as they are our fathers. I fail to see an assurance beyond to whom Christ was speaking, that being the Apostles themselves. In fact they combated misunderstanding and heresies within their own churches even while they were yet alive, more than this, the generation upon whom the Holy Ghost was “poured out” beyond measure. If even the Apostles could not contain and refute all the heresies that were promoted within a generation that saw the greatest (and never to be repeated) outpouring of the Holy Ghost, is it impossible to believe that error was not a factor within the understanding of so called ‘church fathers’ who lived 100’s of years later? The Apostles were even put out of churches during even the years of the outpouring:
3 John 1: 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
Even while John was yet alive true Christian brothers were being cast out of the churches. Also, concerning the return of Christ notice that Paul could not contain the miss-timing of his own contemporaries:
2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Paul was having a difficult time plainly teaching when the resurrection was to occur even in his own day. Is it a wonder that men could fail at the same point shortly after the Apostles had departed? Check the Records It is almost unanimous belief in the first 200 years following 70 AD that Christians taught - just as did Paul – that the Second coming was IMMINENT. Immanency teaches that the return of Christ is “about to” happen. Gentry would do well to justify his own departure from the early teachings of the ‘church’ and he does. What is taught is that the truth of the scriptures is developing and that is why he can hold to his “postmillennial eschatology of victory” in spite of what may or may not have been believed prior to this period of church development.
You see Greg, what is almost universally accepted by Reformed people is that the ‘system of doctrine’ has slowly been revealed over a long period of time. They may quote again:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
As ‘evidence’ that truth was to be a “process of development” over time. The guiding into all truth, they may claim, was to be experienced over centuries. Thus the Postmillennial understanding, while the truth, may be slowly understood as the church ‘matures’ I think that a very, very key element is failing in this kind of assertion. That being that Jesus was talking to the Apostles not the churches throughout all ages. I grant that the church has slowly documented and organized what was FULLY UNDERSTOOD by Paul and SOME of those who heard him.
There are only three views that can be held to my way of thinking.
1. Paul had a full and comprehensive understanding of eschatology and the second coming but that the church as a whole had trouble to understand it
2. Paul had full revelations about eschatology which he, himself, had trouble understanding and may even have misunderstood.
3. Paul had only partial revelations of eschatology and did not fully understand them himself.
My belief is that Paul not only had a full and comprehensive revelation concerning the second coming of Christ, but that he plainly taught it. He was not, however, always understood by all. I believe that subsequent generations have only been attempting to understand what Paul and John taught in the scripture and that the church immediately failed to fully comprehend even while they were yet alive.
2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Greg, how do you think Gentry could explain the fact that some men believed that the resurrection had already occurred, prior to 70 AD, if Paul plainly taught that there would be a long millennium where the Church and Christ would rule perhaps for thousands of years? How hard would it be for Paul to have taught such a thing? Is it hard to say that Jesus will return after many generations? I’m not having trouble saying it – are you having trouble understanding what such a statement would mean? Lets see
Jesus will not be back until after a long golden age
How was that statement? Tough to understand? What then is the problem? Why did Paul not just say that instead of what he did say:
2 Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Instead of telling them to look for a long period of ecclesiastical victory he tells them about an apostasy. “Let no man deceive YOU” You = who? Paul, come on man be more clear! How foolish. Paul is perfectly clear. They, to whom Paul was speaking were to expect the apostasy which is well recorded to have occurred even within scripture itself:
Jude 1: 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude states that the apostate men they were then witnessing were a fulfillment of the words of Christ and Paul – we should look for another apostasy yet thousands of year future as the signal? On what basis?
How could such a teachings be promoted to a Postmillennial eschatology? If the Apostolic church was Postmillennial how could they for a moment think that Christ came back before His own millennium? Absolutely absurd.
Paul suffered his own “left behind” series even before 70 AD. That would not have been possible if the return of Christ and the resurrection was taught by Paul to be after a long millennium that reached over generations of Christians. Plainly stated, the verse so often used against Preterists to prove we are “overthrowing” the faith of some, overthrows the idea that Paul or any whom he taught were Postmillenialists. I am a theonomist. I am a reconstructionist with a small “r”. I am not a “millenialist” of any sort. Christ is King of King. Christ rules upon the earth and always has, even from the time of Adam. Nations are judged and will continue to be judged according to the Law of God – even if they refuse Him. I am not antinomian nor of those who say “I believe in all nine of the ten commandments.” I am not against Gentry or North or any Postmillennial Reconstructionist but I am against their mindless affront to those who uphold the scriptures alone as the rule of faith and practice. I cannot abide this appeal to historic Christianity as the rule of faith and practice in spite of the plain teachings of scriptures much to their contrary.
What is a Protestant? The word itself was built from key root words. “pro” meaning to be “for” something. Prolife was a term invented to replace the negative label of ‘anti-abortionists’. Instead of being ‘anti’ or ‘against’ something it was to be ‘for’ life. The second part of the term Protestant is “testant’ as in testator or as in testimony and as in testament. To be Pro-testant was to be “FOR” the “TESTAMENT” We now use the word in a ‘negative’ sense as in to ‘protest’ on a picket line etc. Protestant did not mean Anti-Papal. It meant to be For the Scripture of God in spite of the teachings of the “church’ of Rome. It is sad to see men like Gentry fall from such “sola scriptura” principles with such arguments that defeat even their own beliefs. Gentry asks “how could the church fail to realize the resurrection” had happened? I ask, how could some believe it happened when it had not as recorded by Paul. Is it entirely impossible to believe that the event expect by most people including Gentry was not to be as visible and obvious as he seems to think it should be? Does he not see that those who were teaching it had already passed in Paul day did not seem to meet with such expectations? If it was to be so obvious that even carnal men should have recorded it in history where then do statement of speed and secrecy fall?
Luke 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
Does lightning take days or weeks to flash across the sky? Or does it happen so quickly that one may ask – “Wow, did you see that?”
Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Is Christ teaching that His coming is ‘bright’ or is it ‘quick’?
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
Does the world have any reason to hide the fact the Christ already returned?
Matthew 28: 12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14 And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
It is not at all unreasonable to me to believe that Christ did in fact ‘rapture’ out His church in 70 AD. In fact, I believe it is so commonly taught within scripture that it is impossible to believe otherwise except I deny the truth of the bible itself. I do not believe that Paul and the other Apostles were wrong about when Christ would return. I do not believe in the “delay theories” that teach that Jesus and the Apostles did teach an imminent return but that God in His wisdom decided to delay the coming based upon man’s response or lack thereof. I cannot buy into Gentry’s partial return of Christ in 70AD and a yet future one at some “distant and unknowable future (date)” Gentry states “His (Jesus’) return has not been imminent since the Ascension.” Postmillennialism and Preterism have one thing in common. Both positions can adamantly state that Jesus will not return in your lifetime Greg. The one because a ‘millennium’ and a ‘golden age’ must first be witnesses while the other because Christ already returned within a generation while some Apostles were yet living. Gentry and other partial preterist at least are faithful enough to scripture to believe that some of the things predicted that accompanied the second coming happened in spite of what the church traditions may have taught but the exegetical tricks involved in splitting those predictions into to different ages millenniums apart are far more difficult for me to accept than to simple take God at His word and believe that all of what he predicted did happen when He said it would happed prior to the scattering of Israel:
Daniel 12: 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
Now again, I have written a post that will likely put you to sleep. It appears I can do no better. I would however say in conclusion that what is being presented by Gentry and many who fight the truth of Preterism is of a much more grave nature and serious beyond a misplacing of the resurrection even if Preterist were wrong, that is, to place creeds, confessions and traditions above the Authority and sufficiency of scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
While men may admit that some of what Paul taught was “hard to be understood” even while he yet lived, that it was given of God. The creeds are given of men and are only what they believe the scripture themselves teach. The bible can never be restricted to being understood in the light of the creeds – that is Catholicism all over again. The ‘church’ in the realm of eschatology has been unanimous about one thing – that there is no unanimously held system of eschatology to date. Preterism will eventually change that. If only 5 centuries ago we needed a complete renovation and reformation in area of ‘salvation by faith alone’ is it beyond belief that the ‘church’ may need a complete renovation in the area of eschatology. Is it not perhaps time to stop labeling the Pope as the antichrist to justify having left or to answer their charges of schism? The pope is a puppet and surely not the voice of Christ but neither is he the antichrist. How would Gentry answer those who would ask why Polycarp or Papias never taught Postmillennialism? What prevents me from asserting that both Postmillennialism and Dispensationalism are false because the imminent return of Christ was taught during the first 200 years after 70AD? That alone undermines the time required for either of those systems to be true. I will tell you what prevents me. I am a Protestant. I am ‘reforming’ and not just Reformed. I am “sola scriptura” I will dispel these systems from scripture alone and not by appealing to ‘fathers’ who I can easily prove to be false at many points of their teachings. Those system can not be right because Paul and Jesus taught that His return was imminent – therein not leaving the kind of time required for millennial systems or day/millennium time schemes. Even Gentry admits these early Christian men fell far from being “assured that the spirit of truth” would always “guide them into all truth” Quoting Gentry from “He Shall Have Dominion”
Origen(A.D. 185-254)
Although MUCH (emphasis mine) in Origen is unacceptable, he is a noteworthy church father of considerable influence. As Phillip Schaff has noted regarding Origen’s views, there was in them a place for a great evidencing of the power of the gospel:” Such a mighty revolution as the conversion of the heathen emporor was not dreamed of even as a remote possibility, except perhaps by the far-sighted Origen.” “Origen seems to have been the only one in that age of violent persecution who expected that Christianity, by continual growth, would gain dominion over the world.” Page 80
Now Greg, please notice. Gentry admits that Origen, who has been deemed a heretic by most Christians, spoke much that is unacceptable but treats him as a fellow Christian and uses this man’s testimony to prove that Postmillennialism is a ‘historically’ acceptable view? The text seems to state however when quoting Schaff that Origen and admitted heretic on many subjects was also ” the only one in that age... expected that Christianity…would gain dominion over the world” This is very ‘selective’ argumentation. He goes on to quote Eusebius concerning Psalm 46:8,9 “..these things have clearly been fulfilled in our day” as proof of the “optimistic” beliefs of these men as being proof of postmillennialism. The logic of how one position proves the other escapes me, except you first agree that only a Postmillennialist is optimistic about the rule of God upon His own earth, a position I find completely without tenant. While I support Gentry in his attack upon the ‘escapist” mentality of many who look for a ‘rapture’ within this generation, I can not condemn every other system as being pessimistic or “pessimillennialism” no matter how clever I may find the terminology that Gary North may invent.
I could continue to bring forth examples of how ‘selectively’ church fathers are quoted and not often without words about how those who quote them do not ‘believe everything’ written by them BUT in the case quoted hurrah hurrah for they agree with little ole me!!! Often the manner in which these quotes are portrayed to prove support are also dishonest. Gentry spend a lot of time proving that other Christians believed that Christianity would affect the world for good and that this somehow proved his eschatology. I believe that Christianity will continue to influence the world for good and will enjoy periods of greater and lesser influence. Perhaps one day dominating the whole world and every political system, do I have to deny the return of Christ to believe such? No.
I am a Preterist. I will remain such until by scripture, and scripture alone, I can be proven wrong. And though the volumes of creeds and confessions to the contrary may continue to grow. Though the edicts of Popes of various denominations including Reformed ones may continue to contradict one another in the area of Eschatology, I will remain fixed upon the word of God Alone. I have no good reason to not believe that things happened just as they said they would. I believe Jesus was taken up into the cloud at 30 A.D. and returned in a cloud at 70 A.D. destroying his enemies and resurrecting the dead, both the just and unjust. Jesus said He would be back within a generation. Forgive me my brothers in Christ, but I am going to trust the words of Christ rather than the creeds of men.
Brian |
