Skinning the Cat: Concluding Comments

The phrase "there is more than one way to skin a cat" most likely originates from a pre-colonial practice of passing off a cat pelt (skin) as some other valuable fur. It is fitting then that I conclude my series on Full Preterism by tying it into another popular expression adopted by the "leader" of FP. "the cat's out of the bag". This expression also has its roots in deception being most likely the practice of convincing some unwary buyer he is purchasing a piglet in a bag but once the bag is opened, "the cat is out of the bag" & the lie is exposed for what it is. (source)

As I conclude my series on FP & leave this blog as a testimony against FP, I would like to touch on the five following topics:

1. Premil to Preterism in just one easy step


2. The Hyperbolic Blindspot


3. Deduction or Scripture


4. Club & Cult


5. A Better Ism

PREMIL TO PRETERISM IN JUST ONE EASY STEP

As part of my backtracking to see where I (& others) went wrong in getting so en steeped in FP, I noticed another factor besides everything I have outlined so far (which included FP penchant for chanting "No Creed but Christ" & then immediately setting about to create "preterist creeds"). FP typically have come from a primary background as premillennial dispenationalists or some variation of the sort. I am sure there are also some from other mild forms of amillennialism, postmillennialism & other eschatological frameworks but for the most part, many FP were premil dispensationalists. The significance of this is that premil dispensationalism is probably the easiest eschatological framework to refute as well as the one with the most glaring contradictions. Thus, when a person moves from that faulty eschatology into FP, it must seem like a move from darkness to light. Granted, it is typically NOT in "just one easy step", but over an excruciating period of time where the person loses all of his or her former premil dispensational relationships due to FP. This compounds the issue & causes the new FP to form a "rejection syndrome" of sorts where he spends much time ridiculing his former group/eschatology as "close-minded", "literalists", "fundamentalists", "legalists" & every other perjoritive you can think of. All the while & ironically advocating "relationships" -- but these FP "relationships" are typically built on the fact that they are outcasts & must stick together at all cost.

The "one easy step" usually comes into play in that the new FP makes no other stops along the way -- typically he went from the night of premil dispensationalism right into the "enlightenment" of FP (with some sitting on the "partial-preterist fence" for a short time). This is also the reason that accepting FP is often equated with a "paradigm shift" because it is not a progressive, logical transition but often a radical, sudden shift without careful consideration or viewing other options.

THE HYPERBOLIC BLINDSPOT

If you have ever interacted with a Christian that insists Jesus died not just for "His sheep" as the Bible says in John 10:11 but instead for the WHOLE WORLD, you will notice they typically argue from one-word or one-phrase arguments such as WHOLE WORLD or saying "all means all". The languages of the Bible just as in our own language often employs what is called "hyperbole". This hyperbolic language is evident in how we say things like, "the whole world is watching" or "everyone & his brother was there". Examples of biblical use of hyperbolic language are:

And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. -- Lk 2:1

Jesus answered and said to them, “Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands.” -- Mt 17:11-12

Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. -- Lk 18:31


Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. -- Acts 4:32

We must ask, did Caesar Augustus tax/register "all the world"??? Did Elijah (who Jesus reveals as John the Baptist in Mt 17:12-13) "restore all things"??? Did "all things" accomplish concerning the Son of Man as Jesus went up to Jerusalem??? Did those early Christians share "all things"...including their wives???

Of course sometimes "all" does mean "all" & "whole/entire" does mean "whole/entire" but more & more I believe FP suffers from the same hyperbolic blindspot as the Arminianistic Christian that argues for unlimited atonement by citing "all" & "whole world" phrases in the Bible. It is no wonder that both consistently Arminianistic & consistently FP people often become some form of Universalist where they advocate "all men" are "saved/not condemened". Both theological perspectives, if taken to their logical conclusions, end with unlimited atonement where God must pardon all or be a big mean monster in the sky.

Watch how FP latch on to what they will say is a "time-text" which sometimes is nothing more than them blindly reading a hyperbolic phrase.

DEDUCTION OR SCRIPTURE

As I am making my break from FP, I have been accused even by former friends that I am not providing them with a "Scriptural refutation" of FP. The irony in this accusation is that FP, as much as they claim "Sola Scriptural" (& falsely so as we have pointed out that Sola Scriptura as the Reformers uttered it NEVER meant Scripture without the interpretation of the historic Christian faith)...THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS JESUS CAME BACK IN AD70. Of course the FP will try to get around this by saying, "Well, of course not since all the books of the Bible were written pre-AD70" (which I agree by the way that the canon was completed before AD70) -- but this doesn't change the fact that THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS JESUS CAME BACK IN AD70 -- so how in the world do FP get the nerve to ask me to refute with Scripture, something not even in Scripture? By that very nature it is self-refuting or at least silent about the AD70 return of Christ. My point is, FP cannot make a "Scriptural" argument for Jesus' return in AD70 so why in the world do they demand a Scriptural refutation of FP? All evidence for an AD70 return of Christ is by DEDUCTION, not by Scripture. This is another reason they often appeal to outside sources such as Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian. I'm not even saying any of this deduction is wrong, just that DEDUCTION IS NOT SCRIPTURAL PROOF.

Why do FP get so upset with me for wanting to go no further than Scripture? Who then is really being "solely Scriptural"?

CLUB & CULT

Another aspect that has been revealing itself more & more, especially as I try to disengage from FP, is that it is a "club" which no one is supposed to ever leave...like the mafia catch-phrase that "no one ever leaves the family", it would seem FP is not something you are allowed to leave. But worse than that is that there are people who are part of the "club" who are not allowed to define it. This becomes evident in that when some FP challenge some of the more popular tenets of FP (such as "covenant creationism", "no more law", "no more need to be 'born-again'") these challengers are quickly reprimanded & the challenger is told that they aren't really FP unless they embrace these views. I imagine what it may have been like for an early Mormon or Jehovah's Witness who may have questioned some of those tenets. I am sure they were quickly told to get with the program or they are out of the club. The same happens within the club or cult of FP. Watch for it to happen as FP morphs more & more into a speculative chaos of humanistic, syncretistic, socialism by the guidance of the unofficial "leader" of FP.

Remember what the unofficial leader of FP said: "We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact." (Virgil Vaduva)

I point out that "fact" yet folks pretend I've been on some personal vendetta all these years but what would it have looked like for someone within the "club" to have constantly opposed Joseph Smith Jr. or Charles Taze Russell at the very beginning of those cults??? I'm done opposing from within where it was constantly ignored or spun as "personal hatred". Let that cult run its course & yet I'll still call "evil evil & good good" within or without.

A BETTER ISM

The last topic I want to address is how many FP keep demanding I provide an alternative view to FP. They claim I don't have an eschatological belief or that I "don't know what I believe" unless & until I do. I can only see a few reasons why they are so eager for me to put forth an alternative. Mainly, so that they have something to latch onto, something they can compare their "ism" against. They want me to propose a better "ism". This is my major criticism of another group that broke off from FP -- this group labels its breakaway as "Preterist-Idealism". To me, it was too hastily offered as "a better ism" to Full Preterism. Believe me, there have been many times I wish I could just embrace Preterist-Idealism so that I could have a quick replacement. And though I appreciate the good folks within Preterist-Idealism that AT LEAST see that the tree & fruit of FP is corrupt, I cannot go where the Preterist-Idealists are going, despite all the claims that my working with them is a "strange alliance". I want to take more time to UNPRETERIZE myself. If someday I'm led to something like Preterist-Idealism, then so be it but I have a life time to resolve that. I mean, do FP actually think 2000 years of Christians were condemned for not having their eschatology packaged as pretty as FP think they have packaged theirs? This arrogant stance is another trademark of most FP.

I refuse to give voice to another "ism" or join some other hastily constructed "ism". Rather, let all the former-FP (the current ones) & the ones that are no doubt on the horizon, gather around the only "club" & "cult...ture" that really matters -- the culture of Christ. Let's leave the "isms" alone for a while & instead start looking at how the historic Christian Church interpreted the Bible, how it lived out the precepts, how it changed the world. Let us leave off trying to trademark theology or demanding people listen to us because we are the "new proud & confident face" of some new "ism". Instead let us be humbled by our faith in the Christ of the Bible. Let us leave the skinning of cats & the letting of cats out of bags to those who desire that practice. Let God be true & every man a liar (in comparison) -- Rom 3:4

The End (hyperbolic or not?)

Roderick Edwards -- former Full Preterist.

History of A Heresy: The Origin of Full/Hyper-Preterism

A history of Full Preterism is in order. This is how to see what went wrong. For starters, you might first look at this link (http://preteristcentral.com/pret-preterist_decade.htm) then come back to read the rest of this article.

In brief, almost all theological expressions of preterism were merely what is now labeled “partial-preterism” BEFORE Max King (a CoC preacher) started advocating his views in the 1970s.

Even the authors who are often cited as being early Full Preterists were not so. For example, Ernest Hampden-Cook, author of “The Christ Has Come” & editor of the “Weymouth New Testament” Bible believed that Christians are presently in the Millennium & that there will yet be an “end”

The word Millennium denotes the “thousand years” of Rev 20:3-4, during which the dethroned ringleader of evil is placed under restraint, & the saints reign with Christ. It stands for an exceedingly long period of which began at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (i.e. soon after the book of Revelation was written) and has not yet terminated (“The Christ Has Come” pg 179)

Indeed, in works such as “The Parousia” by men such as James Stuart Russell & others in the 1800s there was an inconsistent espousing of a complete fulfillment yet even Russell believed the Millennium was yet future:

We must consequently regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, & the events which follow, as still future & therefore unfulfilled. We know nothing in recorded history which can be adduced as in any way a probable fulfillment of this prophecy...This we believe to be the sole instance in the whole book [of Revelation] of an excursion into distance futurity; & are disposed to regard the whole parenthesis as relating to matters still future & unfulfilled. -- (“The Parousia” pgs 522-523)

It is important to note these facts about authors often cited as Full Preterists because the differences between what these authors believed & what Full Preterists advocate is radically different. It is not like just one minor difference separating the two. If the Millennium is yet unfinished & Satan is yet to be released for a time (Rev 20:3), upon whom will his fury be unleashed? We are told by many FP this happened upon the Jews in the first-century.

You see then why I keep bringing this discussion back to the fact that Full Preterism, as we presently know it has its roots within the anticreedal, anticonfessional, & antihistorical denomination of “churches of Christ”? I do not deny that many theologians throughout Christian history have been “preteristic” -- even the book which launched my entrance into Full Preterism, while not being about eschatology could be on the title considered to comport with preteristic notions. The book was “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen – a 17th century Reformer writing on the Limited Atonement. Owen would not have desired a reader take his treatment on the Atonement & turn it into some point for advocating a erroneous eschatology.

We can cite many, many historians especially from among the Reformation that saw victory in Christ's work both at Calvary & at the destruction of Jerusalem, but does this automatically lend itself to what the FP are declaring?

During the Reformation there were many “enthusiasts” & innovators that tried to use Martin Luther as their inspiration for delving into all manner of error. Luther soundly rejected the Peasant's riotous spirit & he further rejected the novelties of groups such as the Anabaptists. The reason the label of heresy & heretic could not & still cannot be rightly applied to the Reformers is because a proper definition of those words doesn't allow it. There then should be no fear from my readers that I will one day renounce Reformed Theology as well as Full Preterism.

Before I begin to use the words “heresy” & “heretic” it is important that these words be properly defined. First, they do NOT mean “anything against the majority opinion”. While on the surface that may seem like how the words are being used, & certainly people often do misuse the words in that manner. It is even often right to say within limited scope, “one man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy”. But we want to get at the real theological definition of the words.

Despite how some try to make it, heresy is not just whatever goes against the majority since majorities come & go, but heresy is what goes against historic Christianity. This is another reason I have been stating that though Scripture trumps all man-made documents, to piously claim “Sola Scriptura” outside of the interpreting function of the Church is truly the definition of heresy. Some have tried to compare the Reformation with the FP movement & how councils have erred. Indeed councils & popes have been in error but we're not talking about specific councils or popes are we? We are talking about the general teaching of the Church throughout history. NONE of the Reformers disavowed the general teaching of the Church throughout history & I contrast they actually appealed to that same Church history to bolster their claims. So, the arguments I hear coming from even my friends within FP are in error because they are not talking about the same things.

The battle-cry of the Reformation was SOLA SCRIPTURA, not SOLO Scriptura. The Reformers understood that the Church throughout history cannot be cast aside to make way for some novel new teaching – that casting aside of the Church is the true mark of heresy & a heretic. For almost every heretic in history has appealed to “the Bible alone”, be it Marcion, Arius, or Arminius. The same is true of outright cults such as the the Muslims, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses But where they always agree is in their disdain for the teachings of the historic Church.

If you want to see the origins of a heresy look for the tell-tell signs:

1. Disdain for creeds
2. Disdain for confessions
3. Disdain for “traditional” anything
4. Appeal for people to have an “open-mind” about what they advocate

The Bible is clear about holding fast to the things taught:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. -- 2 Thes 2:15

Yet people will come in & claim THEY are teaching the TRUE things taught by the apostles. Muhammad claimed this. Joseph Smith Jr. claimed this. Charles Taze Russell claimed this. It is the modus operandi of all heresies to appeal to scripture alone & then proceed in redefining how the historical Church has understood those very same Scriptures.

Therefore when both friends & foes keep demanding from me a “Scriptual” refutation of FP, what they really want is a historically unhinged interaction with proof-texts. They want to ignore the interpretation of the Church & take the path of the heretic that boldly yells “Scripture Alone” but then proceed to become their own “private interpreter”. I will not engage in that kind of Bible study any longer. That is what causes the heresies to manifest & multiply. I have already shown what needs to typically be accepted for most people to be prone for the FP error yet friends & foes alike are ignoring those facts & instead claiming I am painting with a broad brush. They claim they are not defined by the most vocal advocates of FP. That somehow they can advocate their own version of it over in a corner. Further, some get upset because they may have never even heard of these “leaders” of the FP movement & instead claim they came to FP without their influence. This is all good & well but let's think for a moment about Arminianism which at present is the dominant soteriological teaching within the Church. How many times have you been in a discussion with a person who while advocating the very precepts of Arminianism/Semi-Pelgianism will not only disavow having any association with that theology but often they are completely ignorant of it. Add to that the example of Dispensationalism, wherein most people who advocate it have no idea about its history.

So, just because some FP have no idea or claim no association with the history & leaders of FP doesn't mean they can disconnect themselves from it. Indeed, they are defined by it whether they like it or not, just as much as the unwitting Arminian or Dispensationalist.

A CULT IS BORN

It is here where I'd like to give some more of the history of FP. As I originally pointed out, Max King can be credited or faulted with the rise of FP in this century but he & his son Tim King went on to start a different manifestation of FP. They call it “Transmillenialism” which is probably the most universalistic expression of the FP view. They also had the arrogance to trademark the term. This is where FP divides from what Max King started.

Max King did most of his work in FP during the 1970-1990s while minister of the Parkman Road church of Christ in Warren Ohio. At that time, his associate Terry Hall remained behind. Virgil Vaduva, a Romanian immigrant married Hall's daughter & soon embraced the FP view via the influence of his father-in-law. Vaduva's computer knowledge allowed him to launch what would eventually become the most influential FP website & mouthpiece for FP. To be sure, there were other online advocates of FP even before Vaduva – such as Dave Green & Todd Dennis but nothing has had the influence matching that of Vaduva's expression of FP.

Originally, people were drawn to FP due to its apparent high regard for Scripture, but Vaduva quickly moved the focus to socialistic considerations (perhaps a byproduct of his Communistic culture). FP was becoming less & less about Scripture & more & more about theological socialism & so-called “relational” Christianity. Vaduva continued to steer the movement into perspectives such as the “Emergent Church” movement & postmodernism which are syncretistic in nature. All of this was occurring under the willing or helpless eyes of men such as Don Preston, Sam Frost, & Ed Stevens. There was some token resistance but nothing that would change the course of FP.

Vaduva became the de fact leader of FP as it is presented to the world.

In an anti-FP book called “When Shall These Things Be?”, Keith Mathison remarks:

There is no chief spokesman for hyper-preterism. Instead, there is a wide assortment of individuals who have embraced the basic thesis & who have independently constructed various systems of theology on this foundation. (“When Shall These Things Be?” pg 156)

This is only partially true since every “movement” has some sort of leader. Vaduva is the “face” & “voice” of FP in that it is through him & his efforts the various vocal voices of FP operate. Don Preston for example has been highly promoted by Vaduva, then Sam Frost whose books Vaduva actually funded & published & now Vaduva's latest project is the promotion of Tim Martin & Martin's “covenant creation” concepts. Without Vadvua, most of these guys could gather no following.

FP that will not admit that Vaduva is the face of FP only fool themselves. Any side group, such as “Reformed Full Preterists” are just that – a side group. They no more represent FP than did the Anabaptists represent the Reformation. I feel sorry for the Reformed Full Preterists & the others that desire to not be defined by Vaduva & his syncretistic concepts, but it is simply a sad fact that they don't speak for FP anymore than say some offshoot of Mormonism or Islam speaks for those groups.

CONCLUSION

When I started this blog, some people who consider themselves “orthodox preterists” were worried that the broad brush would affect them as well – it is too late for that. That affect is already engrained in perception by how Vaduva & his group has been allowed to take a historic word & turn it into something completely different. Indeed, Vaduva, following suit of his mentor Max King, actually at one time had the arrogant nerve to try to trademark the term “preterism” (source), with little to no outcry from anyone. This is important since many non-FP use that label as well. Men like Mathison, Kenneth Gentry, & R.C. Sproul senior. Just imagine had Vaduva been successful.

If there is any hope of rescuing the historic preterist view, which you can see espoused by many of the real Reformers, then there must be a clean break from all things associated with how the FP have been presenting it. The current FP were not the first to see in the destruction of Jerusalem a significant theological marker. They were not the first to see the passing of the old covenant age & the coming of the new. But they are the first to depart from the interpretation of those events from historical Christian Church.

Lastly, as I have been saying from the beginning – I may not know exactly where I will end up eschatologically but I know I can no longer ignore that God must have sovereignly preserved His Church & has not left it to be redefined by a few arrogant antihistorical, anti-creedal, anti-traditional, anti-confessional private interpreters who are the epitome of heresy. I'm sorry if that causes pause for some of my former friends. I apologize I did not recognize this sooner.
May God guide us as He has no doubt guided His Church throughout history.

In Christ & for Christ,
Roderick

The Faulty Foundation of Full Preterism: An Exegetical Refutation

Certain types of chemicals by themselves may be harmless but when mixed with other chemicals can set off poisonous fumes that can kill. The fumes can even be odorless thus killing the unsuspecting person before they realize. In this same way, the mixture of certain erroneous doctrines may be more or less harmless but when mixed together the effect is deadly. Fortunately, with most doctrinal errors there are very apparent negative side-effects that act as the “odor” that should alert a person that something isn't right.

This is the case with a view called Full Preterism (FP), or sometimes known as “hyper-preterism”.

Full Preterist adherents have been bombarding me with accusations of having no “exegetical” dispute with FP & only having issues with a “splinter-group” of Full Preterists. They err in this accusation on three fronts. One, I have some very specific exegetical disputes with FP of which I will detail in this article. Two, the reason I have focused on the flawed-character issues rampant in FP is because just like the noxious fumes, the flawed-character issues of FP acts as the “odor” that should warn us there is something wrong. Third, the problem ISN'T with mere “splinter-groups” within FP but with the main & most vocal advocates. No matter how much some people within the FP camp would like to practice their form of FP in difference from the main group, they will always be defined by the main & most vocal advocates. Indeed, recently a few of them made these comments:

In my estimation, Virgil [Vaduva] is not only the man of the year [in FP] but of the decade (http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=37470&sid=5420&pid=37469)


I think you [Virgil Vaduva] have been the default face of preterism for the past year. (http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=37473&sid=5420&pid=37472)

(Again, if you want to read these quotes directly you will need to paste the url into your browser as that same Virgil Vaduva has made sure you can't link directly from this site to his words)

It is important to keep pointing this out since I keep getting responses from some Full Preterists who want to claim they aren't defined by this vocal group. They delude themselves if they think they can operate outside the realm of this influence. But I actually agree that presently, Virgil Vaduva is the de facto face of FP – not Don Preston, not Sam Frost, not any other name you can think of within FP, thus the reason it is important to look at the views of Vaduva more than others.

Now, as for the specific exegetical disputes I have with FP we shall focus on 3 points advocated by prominent Full Preterists:

1. The Law has been destroyed


2. Misdirected & Misunderstood “Covenantalism”


3. Anticreedalism/Anticonfessionalism

It is these 3 ingredients that when mixed with the other other 2 perspectives of FP (that Jesus has come in AD70 & the Resurrection of the believers is past) cause the poisonous fumes that kill Christians.

These 3 points are BOTH not germane to FP and yet ARE foundational to FP – That is, FP makes these points their hallmark. Some people think it is the “time-texts” that must be accepted to become a Full Preterist – yet many a “partial-preterist” has accepted most if not all of the time-texts yet have not suffered from the poisoning of FP.

NO MORE LAW

As I have already shown elsewhere, the reason FP adopts a “law is destroyed” view is primary because the main advocates initially originated with the Churches of Christ (CoC) denomination such as Max King, Tim King, Don Preston & their protege, Virgil Vaduva & already have a warped view of the purpose of the Law.

This “no more law” mentality not only leads to universalism (see these links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/, http://talk-grace.com/, http://pantelism.com/, http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/01/don-preston.html, http://universalistarchive.com/, http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterist/Idealism/simmons-brian_07-01.html ) so prevalent among FP, but it also is the cause of some of them advocating such outrageous concepts as there being no more need to ask God for forgiveness – because according to them to ask God for forgiveness was only a Jewish thing & that we should never ask for forgiveness from God because He has already forgiven us of everything already. (see this link: http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Questions/1john19.htm). This is where their antinomianism allows them to launch into all manner of licentiousness. For example, these same writers claims as a test of faith (the first thing he asks new Christians) as whether they drink alcohol or not – because to him if they don't drink alcohol they are usually “legalists” -- How's that for reasoning??? The little disclaimer of “usually legalists” is a thin veil to attempt to hide this writer's disdain for Christians that try to live godly lives. (see this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newcreationministries/message/1689 )

I am sure I could go on & on & show more evidence of the anti-Law teaching of FP but it is not my desire to exert undue amount of effort to be as much “anti-Full Preterist” as I was a Full Preterist. Let the reader do the research if they doubt what I have referenced here.

Suffice it to say, it is an easy launch for the No-Law concept to be twisted when looking at such verses as Romans 5:12-13 & especially verse 13 which reads:

For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

From this, FP claims that without the Law sin cannot be accounted to people – yet they seem to fail at two crucial points. The first being that if they continue to read, verse 14 says:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

So, we see that even WITHOUT the expressed Law, death reigned – How is this possible when the FP will claim that without the Law sin isn't counted against people??? Because the Law was given not only as a clear account but as a clarifier. Sin & Death ALREADY reigned even BEFORE the Law was given. The Law was the schoolmaster/measure of righteousness needed that revealed in the most clear way the need for salvation; and we know no one but Christ could live up to that measure.

The second point where FP No-Law teaching fails is that Jesus specifically said He came NOT TO DESTROY THE LAW...but to fulfill it. (Mt 5:17) There is a vast difference between taking away or destroying and fulfilling. Fulfilling makes sense of Jesus' repeated comments such as “You have heard it said...but I say...” He was trying to show that the Law isn't an outward list of rules that can be kept but that it must be lived by a regenerated heart from within.

Ironically enough the Full Preterists even deny this basic tenet of Christianity – that people must be “born again”. Instead, main advocates of FP claim being “born again” was merely a “first-century thing” that the Jews needed to do to be “born into the New Covenant” (see this link: http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2568 ) We'll get into more or this when I detail dispute point #2.

CONFUSED COVENANTALISM

The next poisonous ingredient is how FP uses the concept of “covenant”. As you know, a covenant at its simplest meaning is a contract between two or more parties, yet when you see Full Preterists use the term they typically mean “spiritualization”. Indeed, early on the CoC used the term “Covenant Eschatology” instead of the term preterism – some like Don Preston still use these labels interchangeably. Before we can unpack the confused notion of covenantalism advocated by FP, it may be best to understand what the Bible means by the word “covenant” beyond the simple meaning of contract.

As systematic theology presents, the concept of covenant in the Bible is not merely “spiritualization” but it points directly to how God relates to humanity. Depending on where you begin your understanding of covenants – God either began “covenanting” with mankind during the Garden of Eden where God simply told Adam & Eve to do this & don't do that & this will happen if you obey & that will happen if you disobey – this is a very basic kind of covenant/contract. Notice though, it is different than how we think of human contracts. Typically in a human contract, all the parties to the contract have some input into the stipulations of the contract. In God's covenants/contracts, He alone decides the terms.

Probably the clearest point of God's covenanting with mankind is found in His covenant made with Abraham. This is found most clearly in Genesis 15 & specifically in verses 17-21 but I want to zero in on verse 17

And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.

At a point in biblical history, a typical method of making a covenant was for the parties of the contract to sacrifice an animal & pass together between the pieces of bloody remains to symbolize what should happen to those who break the contract. (see Jer 34:17-20) The thing to notice in this contract God made with Abraham is that once again God alone made the terms AND God alone passes through the bloody pieces. Abraham was asleep. (see also Ex 32:13) This concept is even further validated in the New Testament where we read in Heb 6:13-14:

For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you.”

So, it should be clear that the Bible uses the word “covenant” to mean, contract or promise & that promise is most of the time initiated & the stipulations are dictated by God alone.

It is important to understand this – it is part of the inoculation against the errors of FP. Without a proper understanding of covenant, a Christian could find themselves duped by the double-speak of Full Preterists.

Again, as I said when we see the word covenantal used in FP circles, they typically mean one of two things:

1. Covenant = Spiritualization


2. Covenant = Separate contracts with Israel & the Church

The first erroneous concept of covenant as merely spiritualization is perhaps most evident in the propositions often repeated by Full Preterists that “everything is covenantal” or "everything is spiritual" & then they proceed to postulate theories that the endtimes are “covenantal” (ie spiritual) & therefore to be consistent they insist that the beginning (Genesis account) must also be “covenantal” (ie spiritual). This comes out in a teaching within FP called “covenant creationism” where it is actually advocated that the Genesis account isn't really about the creation of the material universe & that Adam wasn't really the first created human but that the Genesis account is a “spiritual” representation just as most of the book of Revelation is a spiritual representation. (see these links: http://thekingdomcome.com/a_complete_review_of_timothy_martins_beyond_creation_science, http://www.truthinliving.org/index.php?pr=BCS_Preface )

The covenatal creation view denies the basic hermeneutic of the Bible: typology. The Bible often utilizes the tangible things humans can grasp, including history so as to relate the eventual more important lesson found in the fulfillment.

The error of covenantal creationism is gaining momentum & will soon dominate the most vocal proponents of FP. Another error to add to their long list.

The second way the concept of covenant is used within FP was already referenced as I pointed out how FP sees aspects such as the need to be “born again” only relating to the “Old Covenant” & the “Old Covenant” people (specifically, Israel). This is perhaps another error foisted by the CoC misunderstanding of covenant.

The Reformers advocated One Covenant but two administrations. What is meant by this is that the New Covenant didn't actually do away with the Old Covenant anymore than the Law was destroyed – that is, the NC is the FULFILLMENT of the OC. (see this link: http://soundofgrace.com/jgr/index050.htm )

We can most clearly show this by way of the New Testament accounts where Jesus, John the Baptist & the apostles spoke about how the true Jew, the true sons of Abraham were always those not by flesh & blood but by faith. Remember the original covenant God made with Abraham about his innumerable descendants? What better fulfillment than those in Christ? Indeed, Gal 3:16 even spells out that the “seeds” or descendants of of Abraham are fulfilled in the SEED which is Christ.

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ.

If we follow the Full Preterist reasoning which includes that the being “born again” was merely the Old Covenant people being born into the New Covenant then we should conclude that God is done. That either salvific history is over or that now everyone is automatically reconciled with God – ala universalism. This is the logical side-effect of FP view of covenant applying specifically to the ethnic Israel & consummating in AD70.

Again, I do not intend to become the poster-boy for anti-Full Preterism, I simply want to give Christians a bit of defense against the error of FP. Let the reader research more if need be.

WHO NEEDS CREEDS?

Perhaps the easiest inroad for FP into the hearts & minds of Christians is its seeming appeal to the Bible alone. Full Preterists are fond of using phrases like “Sola Scriptura” & “always reforming” -- mantras of the Reformation. Indeed, they often see themselves as continuing the sixteenth century Reformation. But what they are actually doing is trying to create something in the place of accepted historic Christianity. They will disavow that is what they are doing all the while calling FP a “paradigm change”. They will appeal to the Reformation & slyly try to claim that the Reformers also rejected “traditionalism”. What the Full Preterists either fail to realize or purposely ignore is that the Reformers DIDN'T part with creedal & confessional, historic Christianity, they disagreed with specific popes & councils. But before we get to that, let's define the words creed & confession.

Many modern Christians like to say they hold “no creed or confession but Christ & the Bible” -- that sounds stupendously pious on the surface but what does it really mean? I too was a long advocate of that phrase, even before I was a Full Preterist. But that noble sounding platitude fails. For the word “creed” simply means “belief”, so the moment a person begins to say “I believe XYZ..” they have now espoused a creed. The problem is, it is their own private/personal creed completely disconnected from the historical Christian faith. It is in essence a “private interpretation” of which the Bible specifically warns against. (2 Pet 1:19-21)

Where a creed is a general summary of belief, a confession is more detailed & specific. Oddly enough, any heresy appealling to the Reformation as their model & claiming “Scripture alone” fail to understand that the Reformers were fastidious in the formation of confessions. The Reformers wanted to be clear what they believed so that there was no doubt about their commonly held faith. The Reformer's confessions always referenced the historic creeds as support. (see this link: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html )

The Full Preterist might appeal to people by their apparent high regard for Scripture alone, but ultimately EVERYONE has a creed – even FP but at hand is whether that creed is in line not only with the last few decades of an aberrant group or the views of one individual but if it concords with centuries & millions of Christians throughout history. This does NOT mean the creeds of the Church override Scripture but that the creeds & confessions appeal to the great cloud of witnesses in the Church.

The problem FP really has is that it undermines the sovereignty of God. God has said the gates of hades would not prevail against the Church (Mt 16:18) yet the way FP presents itself is that the Church has failed to maintain basic conformity to the plan of God. FP has a god that could not maintain the Church & that errors became so widespread that only here in the 21st century among this group of people who are completely disconnected from historic Christianity will there be a “restoration”???

Again, this is the reason it is important to highlight that FP first appeared among the CoC denomination which came out of the Restoration Movement – wherein also came Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, & Pentecostalism – all who had in common the concept that the true Church & the true Gospel was lost & they alone were being used to “restore” it. (see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism )

This is exactly the agenda of FP – it sees itself as the beacon of truth & is here to set things straight – things they say have went wrong for over 2000 years.

They claim all of this & at the same time expect people to believe they have no creed or confession. FP is not only outside the pre-Reformation historic Christian faith, even the Reformation did not advocate no more creeds & no more confessions. Only the true heretics appeal to Scripture without creed or confession, in by so doing they can twist the Scriptures to their private interpretation to mean anything they desire.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, if a Christian desires to inoculate themselves against not only the error & poison of FP, but against other errors both bygone & yet to appear, a Christian needs to hold to:

1. The Sovereignty of God


2. Sola Scriptura (which is NOT SOLO Scriptura) within bounds of historic Christianity


3. The historic creeds & confessions of the Church

As the Bible exhorts in 2 Thes 2:15:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

Or will the Full Preterists come along & try to tell us that is only a “first-century, Old Covenant” thing?

So as you can see, my issue with FP is NOT merely about the character-flaws of the majority of Full Preterists, but I have clear & specific exegetical issues for renouncing this cultic error. I have no desire to start a counter movement to FP or be the poster-boy for anti-Full Preterism. I simply wanted to undo a little of the damage I have done by giving my 15 year support to this cult.

This has only been an initial offering of my exegetical disputes with FP. I have purposely not gotten into the time-texts or the Parousia, Resurrection & other issues because those things are built on top of the 3 points I have presented. Without the foundation of these other three issues, FP cannot be maintained.

I grieve for the loss of relationship with some of the respectable people still among FP – though they are a minority within FP & though I know they hope to someday turn it around to be credible, they are fighting a losing battle against arrogant & corrupt people who dominate FP. Even the “partial-preterists” may one day have to stop using the label “preterism” as these vocal advocates of error continue to twist the Scriptures to their destruction. (2 Pet 3:16)

May God be true & everyman a liar in comparison,

In Christ Jesus,

Roderick

Answering Some Questions Before I Move On

Ok, I am fully intending this blog to simply be a place where I am outlining how & why some people come to full preterism (including how I came to it). Next I plan to outline the exegetical arguments for & against the Full Preterist view. After that I plan to address specific propositions of the Full Preterist view. I did not intend to make this an interactive blog, so please do not take offense if I do not interact with comments. Perhaps when I get done outlining some of these issues I can go back & interact. But, I do want to take a moment to address a few things:

1. I JUST renounced a 15 year belief. Please give me time to see where this is taking me. Some people have accused me of doing this to get attention. Really? Am I getting positive attention? I have gotten more rude emails & unposted comments from friends & foes than ever before – making accusations against me that I can't believe I'm hearing. Also, though I appreciate the encouragement from people like Dee Dee Warren, what would it look like if suddenly tomorrow I started writing articles on her website & hobnobbing with every former “opponent”? Again, please give me time.

2. Some Full Preterists are upset because they say I'm unfairly “lumping” them together with “a few rotten apples” -- Well as much as I am disheartened to cause hurt to some folks, the “lumping” in comes from the fact that I'm NOT talking about some “few” or a “splinter group” within Full Preterism – I'm talking about the main advocates. For instance, where do most of the main advocates of preterism go when they want to post an article or make an announcement? Where do these same advocates go when they want to speak at a conference? – THAT is the place that is really the main representation & mouthpiece of Full Preterism. I think if you find that place you'll soon see why you are being “lumped” together. Do you have any power to not be lumped together with that main group??? Let me tell you what the administrator of that main group has said:

we will put a new face on Preterism, whether our critics like it or not. We will drag them kicking and screaming, and confidently we will reassert that Preterism is about the Kingdom, not about being right on eschatology; (Virgil Vaduva - see source)

We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact. (Virgil Vaduva - see source)

source: http://planetpreterist.com/news-2765.html (The guy who said these things so much doesn't want people to see them that he has redirected the link to some other site if you try to click it from here. This is just another example of the poor & immature character of the main advocates among Full Preterism. Just copy & paste it into your browser-bar if you want to view it (until he removes it altogether)

So, you see theses guys don't think you people are driving this boat – they think they are & they arrogantly tell everyone that they will “drag” others even “kicking & screaming” along THEIR version & if you don't like it, tough is what they say – they are running the show, not you. So, you are “lumped” together whether you like it or not. You might think you can be a “Full Preterist” over in your own little corner undefined by guys like the one I quoted above but you are only fooling yourselves.

3. Some Full Preterists have been saying my opposition is only on the basis of the poor characters I reference – That is not true. I also have great opposition to many main tenets of Full/hyper-preterism, the first being the common position that the “Law was destroyed” -- this is emphatically untrue, Jesus says specifically that He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it – this is something much different than what these people are advocating. (Matthew 5:17)
Again, I will outline more specific doctrine disputes I have as I go along.

4. Some Full Preterists are confused by what they see as a sudden shift by me – yet if they had been paying attention they would know full well it isn't sudden but has been coming along for over 5 years now. Perhaps it first started with the influx of universalism that swept Full Preterism a few years back, then the embracing of “Emergent/Postmodernism” & add to that the neglect by most of the prominent Full Preterists to speak against these issues – oh, but they would still show up at conferences sponsored by supporters of these corruptions -- & typically NOT to speak against these things but just to pat-backs & shake hands with their "dear brothers". Folks, if a group cannot even police itself then something is terribly wrong. Look again at the 1 Cor 5 Church & you will see what happens when people think their “loving tolerance” of corruption is a noble thing to be proud of. This reflects poorly upon ALL persons in the group whether they like it or not – silence is affirmation.

So again, give me time to work through some of this – if you are a full preterist & you just want to ignore what I'm doing, what I'm writing so be it. But just know that for those who have been telling me that all of this should have been an “in-house” discussion & is only giving ammo to the “futurists” -- you'd better believe it. The opportunity for an “in-house” discussion is past – there were too many years of hearing people tell me to shut up & go away, so now this discussion will take place outside & I hope it does give as much ammo as possible to take down every corrupt element of Full Preterism that there is, both corrupt character & doctrine.

Lastly, let me say to those who consider themselves “historic” or partial-preterists who fear what I am doing will even give ammo for futurists to attack their position – be assured I doubt that.

To conclude, I will say, it is not I who has betrayed Full Preterism but Full Preterism betrayed me.

Unpreterizing Yourself: How did you get here?

As with any complex & precarious situation in which you might find yourself, one of the first things to help undo the situation is to determine how you might have gotten into it in the first place.

A pattern I have noticed within hyper-preterism is that almost all of them suffer from “rejection syndrome” -- this in its simplest terms means that they were already suffering from a complex of having been rejected by a mainline group. Allow me to elaborate.

Modern “Full Preterism” has its roots within the denomination of “Churches of Christ” (CoC) which by nature is a very “rejected” denomination by most of mainline Christianity. Keep in mind, I am not saying this as an “attack” on or insult toward CoC people as I count many CoC people as friends – but it is just a matter of fact that CoC (originally called “Campbellites” by its detractors) is often considered almost a “cult” by mainline Christianity since CoC grew out of the “Restoration Movement” as did other cults like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, & Pentecostalism. If you doubt this or it enrages you, please see these sources: (source #1, source #2)

So, with the rejection background CoC people are prime & prone for deviating further & further from any historical form of Christianity, indeed the Restoration Movement from which CoC hails has in common with the other cults, one specific element – all of these groups claimed to be “restoring” Christianity back to its first-century structure & practice. In this effort they tended to reject all historical creeds & confessions of the Catholic AND Protestant Church & in essence started from scratch even to the point of creating many of their own Bible versions to support their new theology, as the Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses did (Mormon = Book of Mormon, JW = New World Translation). The problem is, these groups were not really getting back to the first-century Church but rather they were innovating & creating their own version of what they thought or wanted the first-century Church to be.

Perhaps at this point a CoC reader is upset about the connection I am making, but again it is not an attempt to disparage because now I will hit closer to home with my own experience since I do NOT have a background within the CoC.

Another group to which hyper-preterism has appealed is some forms of Baptists (which is my background) & just as with the CoC, Baptists have a history of being anti-creedal & anti-confessional yet are still typically accepted within mainline Christianity & indeed in America, the Southern Baptist Convention is now the largest “Protestant” group. This maverick mentality again leaves the average Baptist susceptible to doctrinal perversion. I have experienced this first-hand as I was a practicing Baptist for over 12 years & I know during that time I was rarely taught much of Church history & how we progressed (or digressed depending on your perspective).

So, the pattern I see is that most hyper-preterists are ripe for accepting the belief because they are typically already half way there. They have a mindset of being rejected by the Church or perhaps even self-piously preservers of the “true” Church & thus of course the “true” teachings. Once a hyper-preterist begins to experience even further rejection such as how most hyper-preterist are rejected by even the CoC & the Baptists, it is not a far slide.

An ironic side effect of this rejection syndrome from which most all preterists suffer is their tendency to become even more combative. I say it is ironic because for all their talk of being “victorious” & preaching some extensive end of Death & Satan they tend to live a life of victim-hood – much the same as an injured & cornered animal, such as a family pet will lash out irrationally against even people that are attempting to help, so too do most hyper-preterists when people reach out to bring them back from their errors. They are anything but “victorious”.

As I conclude, I don't want anyone to misconstrue that I am advocating creeds & confessions over Scripture – it should be obvious that I am a strong advocate for Sola Scriptura but Sola Scriptura is not SOLO Scriptura – that is, Scripture has NEVER operated in a vacuum, it is true because it is true when presented in any environment. A creed & a confession is simply a collection of “I believe...” statements. The point is, that our “belief statements” should reflect & accord with Scripture thus EVERY person who calls themselves a Christian follows a creed or/& a confession but at issue is whether it is a personal/vague creed of their own making, a new innovation that departs from sound doctrine, or if it is a biblically-tested, time-tested, Church-tested (as in tested by the whole of Christian peers) belief?

There may be times & points at which to diverge from the majority of Christianity & from the historical Church but those times must be approached with the utmost care & even “fear”. It is no light thing to find yourself against the weight of Christian history. To say it has failed at some point does do harm to the Sovereignty of God & His ability to bring about His Will. This is one reason why the Restoration Movement was so odorous to mainline Protestants – the groups that were coming from the Restoration Movement were actually saying the Church & the Gospel had been “lost” & needed to be “restored”. Oh, what a charge against God who said that even the gates of hades would not prevail against the Church. (Mt 16:18)

Hyper-preterists are certainly not approaching with care & caution with their serious claim of being “reformers” & “restorers” of the Church. They too often blithely talk about “paradigm shifts” as they go about not just uprooting hay, wood, & stubble but actually attempting to pry up the very foundations of historic Christianity & putting in its place their “new kind of Christianity” which is completely disconnected from anything that came before.

Hyper-Preterism: The Root of Death

At first the preterist view seems like a tree of life, liberating the person from stodgy, dry theological ponderings of the past...but as a person consumes more & more from the fruits of preterism they are soon consumed themselves.

If they had not been inoculated against blantant falsehood, they will soon find themselves completely unmoored & drifting along on the abysmal "journey" that is hyper-preterism.

The journey into this lethal land of latitudinous error typically begins with an unfortunate experience.

The experience ranges from anything where the person begins to question a mentor about eschatology & the mentor clearly has a poor grasp of the subject & thus is seen to flounder or even hypocritically & inconsistently answer, or the person may have already had side-effects of some rejection they are suffering. Perhaps they didn't fit in well with some mainline group so now they look for the most off-the-beat-and-path concept they can to really stick it to the rejectors. (This is the reason many of the original Hyper-Preterists were from the denomination of "Church of Christ" -- a group that thrives on being self-piously "rejected" by mainline Christianity)

At first everything seems new, like they have just 'rounded a corner to find an open vista of glorious green & a pure river flowing from a tree of life -- but in reality they are about to eat from the root of death. Death, because hyper-preterism kills the morality of a person. I don't mean it COULD or MIGHT or POSSIBLY but 99.9% it DOES adversely affect their character. Just as true hyper-calvinism or universalism leads people to behave in a "tolerant" manner that would even shame the immoral "tolerance" of the Christians in 1 Cor 5 -- hyper-preterism is all of this combined into one.

For many people, by the time they see this, it is too late. They have already invested so much of their life into it that it is almost impossible for them to UNpreterism themselves.

I am devoting this site to helping people stop their addiction to the root of death that preterism has become. In the coming weeks, months, & years if needed I will step through my 15 years of time within the preterist community. I will bring foward the details of the various preterist propositions & show where they veer from the biblical path.

May God use this site to help someone escape from their self-made oblivion.