|
|
|
|
Perspectives:
If the Preterist view is correct, how has
the church missed it for all these years? Response by: Jim Gunter, Richard McPherson, Jerry Wayne Bernard I would like to speak briefly on how I understand this question as it relates to the last few generations. In doing so, I’m certain that I am not alone in these thoughts. So please bear with me as I set forth a few of the reasons for the Preterist view eluding the Church those years. Not only did I become a Christian at perhaps a later age than most (age 31 in 1969), but not until 33 years later, in April of 2002, would my exposure to and acceptance of the Preterist view of eschatology come to pass. And, good folks, this was not because I didn’t spend much time in study of our Father’s Word. No, no, this was in spite of the fact that I had studied the scriptures daily, ever since my conversion—I even preached for about five years. I mention these things only to indicate that the reason for my missing the Preterist view of eschatology for those 33 years was something other than a lack of Bible study. So then, just how could it be that for 33 years, this marvelous window of light eluded my notice? To me, beloved, coming to learn of this approach to the Spirit’s revelatory work is much like one of those precious gems that lay in plain view right before my very eyes all those years, yet going completely unnoticed, until one day, Bingo! So, how does this happen to so many of God’s people? Well, I would like to briefly discuss what I believe are some of the reasons: (1) Our spiritual journey parallels that of our parents, at least for a while, simply because we learn our spiritual values, beliefs, and practices from them. Consequently, many disciples, when exposed to something new to them, are reluctant to change their thinking because they feel that somehow they are betraying their parents. (2) Brothers and sisters, Church Creeds (whether written or unwritten) exist, whether we like to believe it or not. These, I believe, are a major roadblock to why many disciples have missed, and continue to miss the “Preterist view.” Some disciples are so fortunate in that the entire group of believers with whom they assemble subscribe to the Preterist view. This is truly a great blessing; however, very rarely is this the case. Some brethren from among those of my spiritual heritage honestly believe that they have no Church Creed. And let me say this to their credit: these are brethren whom I deeply love, and brethren who are honorable, well-intentioned, and who genuinely love our heavenly Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. However, when it comes to their claim that they have no “Church Creed,” I have come to understand differently. For example, if a Bible class teacher who has learned all these marvelous eschatological truths tried to expound these truths to his Bible class, he would be dealt with swiftly and harshly. This would happen because these truths are outside the parameters of what the church teaches and has accepted as their body of truth. This teacher’s thoughts and ideas would quickly be labeled as “heresy or false teaching” and just would not be tolerated. In addition to that, the teacher would probably also be instructed that unless he repents of this, i.e., unless he abandons these thoughts and ideas, and publicly states such, he would not only be precluded from teaching, but would also be considered to be outside the fellowship of the Church. Thus, whether or not a particular church calls their body of truth a “Creed,” there remains a standard by which we are judged. So, I trust that you can see that many disciples have not been able to learn these marvelous truths because of the influence of “Church Creeds.” Yes, brethren are so afraid to think for themselves and to make up their own minds in such matters, because they fear the powers that be. Beloved, I believe that we should do as the apostle Paul instructed the disciples in the province of Galatia. He said very sternly, “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1). A number of the disciples in the province of Galatia were Jews. After having been set free from the yoke of a “system of law” by the glorious gospel of grace through Christ, they were being harassed by the Judaizers to return to the very thing which had held them in bondage, namely, “The Law.” Sadly enough, many disciples today are not free. This is so heartbreaking. They have not learned from these things that happened to the first century Jews. Like the Jews of old, many disciples seemingly desire to be under a system of “law” and consequently reject God’s marvelous free gift. It seems they feel the need to have a part in their salvation. (3) The final reason I believe disciples have missed the Preterist view is the advent of The Scofield Study Bible, first published in 1909. Cyrus Scofield was an avid Zionist and a zealous promoter of the Dispensational Pre-millennialist view. Using the KJV Bible, Mr. Scofield devised his own method of promoting his teachings by inserting his copious notes and commentary alongside, and in many cases, directly into, the text of this Bible. Sadly enough, many disciples accepted his notes and commentary almost to an equal degree to which they did the inspired text. Incorporated into this Dispensational Pre-millennial view was Mr. Scofield’s belief of a future “rapture” of the saints; a teaching based on John Darby’s interpretation of 1 Thess. 4:13-18, which was introduced ca. 1830. Consequently, this view of a future “rapture,” incorporated into Mr. Scofield’s Bible, has garnered the support of many in Christendom, where such had not been the case before. Because of Scofield’s clever method, this teaching spread rapidly among disciples of the twentieth century, and now the twenty-first century, blinding many to the marvelous eschatological truths of the scriptures. May the Lord richly bless you with His grace and peace.
The “church” in the first century understood completely when Jesus would return (Matt 24:34 et. al.). The problem is the “church” today. People (the church) don’t study the scriptures (the Bible). They blatantly refuse to let God speak for Himself. People take one scripture text and build a whole theology around it without looking at the whole picture.1 Consider the following verses: 2 Timothy 3:16 (ALT) All Scripture [is] God-breathed and [is] beneficial for teaching [or, doctrine], for verification [or, reproof], for correcting faults, for instruction in righteousness [or, the behavior that God requires]. . . (YLT) . . . every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness . . . 2 Timothy 2:15 (ALT) Be eager [or, diligent] to present yourself approved to God [as] a worker with no need to be ashamed, cutting straight [fig., teaching accurately; or, interpreting correctly] the word of truth. (YLT) be diligent to present thyself approved to God—a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth; We quote these all the time but the problem is this—do we really believe them? To me, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity is when Rome legalized the movement. Since that point in time, man has turned Christianity into a government and a cause for war. Over time man has compromised the scriptures so they will blend with their beliefs and be politically correct. Being a Preterist is not fun all the time. People have lost friendships over this view. When you bring up scriptures during Bible Class that go against other people’s beliefs, you are labeled as a troublemaker. In some cases, people have been disfellowshipped over this view. People are afraid to REALLY study the scriptures. Some causes for this fear are: 1. With Preterism, look at all the money we will lose. 2. Brother so-and-so, or my preacher (pastor), taught me that Preterism was wrong, and I believe him/her. 3. With Preterism, we have nothing to look forward to. 4. With Preterism, we don’t have anyone to blame. 5. None of the early “church fathers” believed in Preterism, so it has to be wrong. 6. The Creeds that we live by say nothing about the Preterist view. Do we remember what Peter said in Acts 5:29? (ALT) But answering, Peter and the apostles said, "It is necessary to be obeying God rather than people! (YLT) And Peter and the apostles answering, said, `To obey God it behoveth, rather than men . . . On my web site I have a notice which says, “Don’t take my word or any other person’s, but study for yourself. Look at ALL the facts and the whole picture.” However, today, and in years past, man has put his faith and devotion into what preachers (pastors), creeds, conventions and organizations say, instead of putting their trust in the One that really matters—GOD. Yes, change is hard and it takes time. With the (Full) Preterist view, the scriptures fit like a glove. Everything just goes into place. Look at what R.C. Sproul says about the Preterist, “Obviously the Full Preterists have no desire to deviate from Scripture. They bear the burden in this controversy of showing that creedal orthodoxy has been wrong at crucial points of eschatological understanding” (The Last Days According to Jesus, pp.156-157). Look at the first part, “Obviously the Full Preterists have no desire to deviate from Scripture…” What is that saying about the other views of Preterism, like Partial Preterism and Hyper-Preterism? Until people really believe that the scriptures are words from God Himself, and that He means what He says and He says what He means, people will doubt the timing passages in the New Testament. Until people put their faith in God instead of man and start studying for themselves, people will continue to misunderstand the Preterist view. To answer the question is quite simple—the “church” missed the Second Coming just like the Jews missed the First Coming. They had eyes which did not see and ears that did not hear. In my opinion, Jesus WILL NEVER come again. Why? Where will he come from? He’s already here! As a side note, one reason that I see why the “church” (people) will continue to reject Preterism is this—they see all of the back-stabbing, name-calling and the nit-picking among Preterists. We have Full Preterism, Idealist Preterism, Literal Preterism, and Calvinist Preterism all claiming to be better than the other, dividing over issues like Heaven Now or Heaven Later, Literal Rapture or Spiritual Rapture, etc. The unity that we once had is quickly dissipating. We spend more time fighting amongst each other than we do helping people understand. 1 I touch on this in my article, What Kind Of God Do We Know? (available at www.preterism-eschatology.com)
The scholar that espouses a realized eschatology is many times asked, “Did the church fathers believe that the Lord came a second time in the first century?” Certainly it is important to know what was in the minds and hearts of the church fathers. The question lingers for all good students of scripture to answer. In the years following the first century, were historians and theologians so consumed with division and heresy in the church that they were unable to properly define the Second Coming? There are four points that must be considered as we look at the subject of realized eschatology in the years following the first century. We must discover, if possible, not only (1) what happened, but also (2) how events were understood by the early church fathers, (3) what bias the historians brought to their writings, and (4) the audience for whom the historians wrote. The past is forever gone, but one can try to reconstruct part of it, depending upon the character of the available sources. Such a reconstruction must include a presentation of sources, their interpretation, and, as a last resort, hypotheses that may solve some problems and, in a logical way, fill the gaps in the source material. History is not an exact science, because one does not know all the facts. This restoration of history reminds me of a process I experienced over forty years ago, as I watched an archaeologist struggle to restore a beautiful Mycenaean jar. Even with less than 30 percent of the shards available in both large and small pieces, much was learned about its form and decoration as the methodical restorer rearranged the pieces on the table like a jigsaw puzzle. As the decorative pattern on the pieces of the jar was recognized, progress was speeded up. When every recognizable piece was put into its proper place, modern clay was added in the spaces between the pieces and the vessel took shape before our eyes. This was not done in an hour or so. This process took several days, weeks and even months in most cases. Although the original beauty was not there, we could see what the shape and decoration might have looked like. The archaeologist said that the reconstruction does not reveal the deviations, mistakes or whether the jar was somewhat deformed in the hands of the original potter. This is an example of how I view the process of the reconstruction of church history. The church fathers could not see all the events and changes of the first century. The ideas of those who chronicled the first century history—humans with their own biases—escape us to a large extent. Most scholars define the history of church tradition as the theological agreement of the first 500 to 1,000 years of Christian history. This common consent encompasses the church’s universally agreed upon creeds, councils, fathers, worship, and spirituality. Some key teachings and figures include the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Definition, the works of Athanasius, the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), the spiritual writings of monks like Anthony of Egypt, and certain biblical commentaries and pastoral works. However, little was settled in the realm of eschatology due to fear of being labeled a heretic. If one insists on holding to the church authority of the first 500 years of teaching and practice, they will most likely be forced to change from their “saved-by-grace” persuasion to the medieval ideas of the Orthodox church. When Martin Luther burned the books of Catholic canon law at Wittenberg’s Elster Gate on December 10, 1520, he epitomized the Protestant distinctive. Whatever honor Protestants bestowed upon tradition, they now denied that its authority was coequal with scripture. Thus Luther wrote, “What else do I contend for but to bring everyone to an understanding of the difference between the divine scripture and human teaching or custom?” Calvin objected to the “tyranny of human tradition which was haughtily thrust upon us under the title of the church.” The Reformers did not reject tradition as a help to wisdom, as a reading of Calvin, Luther, or Wesley easily shows. What they objected to was the elevation of tradition to the status of scripture. When we find the truth of the Parousia and eschatology in its finished work, we must take the scripture above tradition and past positions. One can find Orthodox statements that ascribe a unique authority to scripture over tradition, but these are few and far between, and speak of tradition in a narrower than usual sense. Compliance with the church fathers categorically rejects the historic Protestant idea of sola scriptura. Church fathers affirm forms of tradition including: the first seven ecumenical councils, which were acknowledged as normative and, by some, even infallible writings, especially those of the first four centuries; later councils; the Liturgy; canon law; and icons. Do we look to these foundations for a proof of the truth of scripture? They are all in discord over most of the propositions put forth. If we say that scripture and tradition are equal and that both should be considered as divinely inspired, we are in trouble. The principle of sola scriptura places scripture above tradition. However, the early church fathers maintained that tradition and scripture were complementary means of one organic whole through which the Spirit of God speaks. In biblical interpretation, Reformers placed the scriptures above the church. They insisted that the Bible interprets itself and, through the Holy Spirit, God instructs its readers in a direct and individual manner rather than binding their consciences to the supposedly reliable traditional teaching of the church fathers. This view elevates scripture above church tradition and actually encourages private interpretation for all students. In the fourth century, Eusebius reports precisely this fact: “Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another of the same name” (III.25,3). It is not until A.D. 367, more than two hundred years after Marcion compiled his Bible, that Athanasius of Alexandria cites a complete list of canonical books (39th Festal Letter). Even decades later, works like the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter found their way into “official” orthodox Bibles, and the formal adoption of the canon by the Catholic church did not occur until the Second Council of Carthage in A.D. 419. Clement, writing to the Corinthian church on behalf of the Roman church (1 Clement) late in the first century, quoted from Titus, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews (consistently attributed to Paul by ancient sources), and Philippians. In his seven authentic letters written ca. A.D. 107, Ignatius of Antioch quoted from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. Polycarp (ca. A.D. 108) quoted from every Pauline letter except Colossians, Titus, and Philemon. They had scripture, but human error led to a church that was only a vague semblance of the faith Christ initiated. However, God’s will can be discerned by those willing to lay aside past tradition and return to God’s word. Ultimately, too much of the story of the church from the second century on is one of the all-too-familiar human struggles for power—the direct opposite of Christ’s teachings. We need to be reminded time and again that Jesus’ ministry was primarily to those who had been marginalized by the institutional religion of His time. From the moment of His birth, first announced not to kings, priests, scribes, elders and other religious leaders, but to anonymous shepherds, Christ Jesus represented something qualitatively fresh and full of life. It was “new wine.” Too many who thought themselves key members of God’s community forgot that then and still forget it today! If the scriptures say, “the time is short” and “this generation shall not pass before all is fulfilled,” should we look to see if others around us or in our past agree with it or not? My answer is sola scriptura and it is my opinion that it teaches a realized eschatology. The Lord has arrived.
|
|
|