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