Conclusion
As mentioned earlier, in order to learn what the big to-do about full preterism was, I watched several videos about it, both for and against; then I watched a few debates on the subject. David Hester calls full preterism a heresy; but he debates Don K. Preston and even treats him as a brother. As I have shown from Scripture, this is wrong. The apostle Paul did not debate heretics in a forum or manner wherein heretics were treated as brothers. David Hester is Education Director and Involvement Minister for the Eastern Meadows Church of Christ in Montgomery, Alabama. Don K. Preston had his hotel room paid for when he came to town to preach heresy in this church. David Hester complains about division in the Church; but then he invites a heretical divider into his church to preach heresy to his people.
Because I had to learn about a current heresy to be opposed and refuted, I cannot be held guilty for watching debates that I don’t believe should have happened. I will now share the two most important things I learned from that minor mental exertion. I do not know if David Hester is thoroughly orthodox. I don’t know enough about his ministry in order to judge that. But when he speaks traditional orthodoxy against full preterism, I can easily understand him; I have ‘ears to hear’ what he says. Conversely, even when Don K. Preston says ‘catch the power of this!’ I cannot catch that power no matter how hard I try. I can’t follow him down his winding corridors; I can’t see what he sees; I can’t hear what he hears; I can’t catch the power that he has caught. Either he is blind to the Bible, or I am. I can catch the power of what I believe is faithful exposition; but I can’t catch the power of full preterism. This, I believe, is because full preterism is perilously unorthodox. When a Christian cannot catch light from a speaker, the speaker is likely in darkness. If what he says is as nebulous as the un-deciphered Code of Hammurabi, he, not the Christian listening, should be suspected of cloudiness and confusion. This is the most convincing indicator, I think, of full preterism being unorthodox. Because it is both dark and perilous, the sincere Christian will not be able to catch its alleged light and power. I have ears to hear when Michael Brown debates Preston as well. I even have ears to hear when Jason Wallace debates him. Wallace was so over his head in that debate that he was drowned in it; but because his arguments lined up with Scripture, my Christian spirit recognized that he was right. The most airtight argument for the full preterist being wrong, then, is the revelation in 1 Corinthians 2: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given us of God” (verse 12.) The spirit saved by God through Christ can recognize error because the truth has been revealed to him and resides inside him. He has the mind of Christ (verse 16.) Mr. Wallace played the fool in deciding to debate Mr. Preston. “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty” (1 Corinthians 1.27.) Don Preston, the wise man, was taken in his ‘own craftiness’ (3.19) at least where I was concerned: because I noticed the ‘foolish things of the world’ (1.27) in Mr. Wallace to be the truth. When listening to these two debaters, it was evident that the heretic was whipping the man who leaned orthodox. Still, the Christian is able to judge that the man who lost is the man who was right. The heretic will call this judgment unfair. To the Christian, this doesn’t matter, for he is the spiritual man in the following verse: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man” (1 Corinthians 2.15.) The Christian has something akin to a spiritual nerve to distinguish truth from error. Like Spiderman with his spider sense or a woman with her intuition, the Christian’s ‘inner man’ tingles when something’s not right.
The second most convincing indicator that full preterism is wrong is that it is based on the year A. D. 70. That is its foundation, which foundation is about as stable as the temple was at that time. The full preterist has to wrest the Scriptures in order to make them fit into this ‘time stamp,’ as he calls it. The future of full preterism is like the fate of the temple that was destroyed in A. D. 70. “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Matthew 24.2.) It is not safe for the soul to be worshipping at the temple of full preterism.
If full preterism is gaining ground, it may be because multitudes are finally tired of the other extreme: all the hype and false predictions over the last few decades concerning the rapture, the great tribulation, the antichrist, the mark of the beast, the two witnesses, the millennium, and all the other sensational aspects of pre-millennial faith. Tired of all the fanaticism and false predictions, the natural thing is to react all the way to the other extreme where no prophecy whatsoever has to be waited for ever again. But full preterism, because of its denial of fundamental doctrines, is more perilous by far than any brand of pre-millennialism. Full preterists assert that the second coming, the judgment, and the resurrection are all behind us. If their assertion is wrong, they might as well be denying those doctrines and events. I suppose they believe that history on earth will go on indefinitely. This is likely their belief, for full preterism is earthly. “This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish” (James 3.15.)
Is it not true that Christians who end up being babes tossed about by winds of false doctrine for years upon years are fascinated by things less than elementary—much less elementary than the fundamental doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment? (Hebrews 6.1-2.) Are so many of these babes not obsessed with things like glossolalia, the location of Noah’s ark, and the nature of pre-diluvium giants? Speak to them on a topic like that, and their eye becomes as focused as the eye of a cat on a nearby bird. Then mention resurrection, and it is not the history or futurity of this that grips them—not the resurrection of Jesus or the general resurrection—but an alleged resurrection by a ‘faith healer.’ These babes are the ones who are most susceptible to believe an idea like ‘the resurrection is past already.’ They are not grounded in basic doctrines; the winds of heresy easily carry them off; and many babes, consequently, are destined to have it discovered at the last day that they were not ‘Fathers in Israel’ like they saw themselves as, and not even ‘newborn babes,’ but deceived unbelievers. Many babes never mature because the fundamentals that lead to childhood are never studied by them, being laid aside for things that titillate more than teach. The first concern of a babe should be to become a child at least. Baby Street, if stayed on, may lead to Heresy Avenue, which in turn opens up to a Broadway leading to Destruction. Warn the stubborn babe of this, and he will be as certain that he is safe as Don K. Preston is of obtaining salvation through his eviscerated system. It is not wrong to seek out mysteries. But there must be order and proportionality to our seeking. A carpenter doesn’t learn to build houses by making hobby horses. A hobby horse Christian is an incorrigible toddler who refuses to be taught. The first principles of religion, what are they? He knows them all. He knows everything about every single one. He must move on to find out how giants were conceived, where the Urim and the Thummim might be discovered, and where the sword of Goliath was last laid down. We don’t need the Urim and the Thummim to divine what happens next. By riding the trails on his hobby horses, without the weight of first principles to keep him grounded, he is blown about, and becomes a full preterist or something just as deadly to his soul.
One fundamental point gotten wrong has cost many a person so much. A dissertation is lost on account of the wrong button pressed. A rifle fails to fire because the pin was left out. How fundamentally important is the resurrection of the body? Can this teaching be absent from the soul that is saved? An astronomer said that the darkest thing she ever saw was the moon as it covered the sun. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, if covered by unbelief, will bring about its own eclipse, more dark than any natural one on record, and as stretched out in time as eternity itself. Resurrection, according to my species of synesthesia, is a fiery red word; while unbelief is a black word. This black word is now covering the red one in the lives of many, and it is driven by the impulse of full preterism. We had better die “knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus” (2 Corinthians 4.14.) We had better know this in the reasonable, traditional sense: as Jesus rose from the dead bodily, so will we. Reaching forward into chapter 5, we are reminded of what we all know by observation: that, upon death, a soul becomes absent from its body (5.8.) The prospect, then, is of what must take place thereafter: the rejoining of body and soul. And to what purpose is that? “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (verse 10.) Full preterism is the belief that all prophecies have been fulfilled. Both heaven and hell are prophesied in the Bible. What can the full preterist believe, then, except that hell and heaven are in the past, and are, therefore, allegorical? And what has the full preterist to say about wrongs one day being righted? If all prophecies are in the past, all murderers and rapists and robbers who have gotten away with their sins and crimes will never be finally judged. If all prophecies are in the past, we are told in vain to ‘give place to wrath’ so that God can do the repaying (Romans 12.19.) If all prophecies are in the past, the Lord will not repay criminals with vengeance after all. Therefore, if the plan of the full preterist is correct, present lawlessness will never give way to justice.
The story of how Don K. Preston became a full preterist is helpful as a warning. This story he gave in a speech called, Testimony Regarding Full Preterism. Freshly graduated from seminary, Don K. Preston decided, not to teach what the Holy Ghost impressed him with, not even to teach what a new minister ought to be paying attention to, but what the women in his Bible class wanted him to teach. What did he study? What did he teach? He studied and taught Matthew 24 and Revelation. Instead of studying and teaching the fundamentals of the faith, which he ought to have done, he studied and taught the subject of end-time prophecy. Besides the fact of his unbelief, is this not the key to how he was led astray? He began with last things instead of first things; and because he was never grounded in first things, his false interpretation of last things led him into fundamental errors. His problems did not start here though. When he was in seminary, two of his professors admitted that they did not believe what they were about to teach. It is not a surprise, then, that Mr. Preston was cast adrift. Not to say that the ‘Church of Christ’ textbook that his professors were teaching from was thoroughly truthful. The point is that the seminary that he went to did him no good. And then he became a minister who didn’t know what to believe. And from all of this we get a man who ends up preaching full preterism. The man began with last things instead of first things; then he interpreted first things according to his theory of last things; and it is no wonder that a Christian can barely understand a thing that he says. When a man begins with last things before he is grounded in first things, he risks ending mixed up about all things. It is not safe to begin your ministry with difficult eschatological texts that masters in the word of God have been doubtful about the interpretation of and have disagreed with each other on. It is not safe; it is not wise; it is not ministerial. Did he teach something other than eschatology after he graduated? I don’t know; but I doubt it. To teach eschatology as a young minister, without the ballast of historical theology, is impetuous, reckless, and hazardous. It is a sure way to shipwreck your faith and the faith of those who listen to you. How did I write this article? Did I rely on my own skill and understanding? Here is how I did it: I looked closely at each passage that seemed to address the subject in question; I compared those passages with others of similar character; I came up with an outline; I took notes; I looked up some key words; I took more notes; I compared all of this with full preterism; I wrote the article; in my revision of it I made sure that I was convinced; I turned to learned Commentators, and received correction from them in places where they convinced me of error; I opened up a Confession or two, and considered them; and during all of these stages I was meditating and praying intermittently. I did not begin with Commentaries and Confessions. I did the work on my own; then I allowed myself to be edified by the body of Christ (Ephesians 4.12) that these Commentators and Confessors are part of (verse 11.) Before all of this, however—years and years before all of this—I had studied to the point of arriving at a considerable share of certainty regarding a system of theology. This does not mean that my system of theology decided anything; I did not adopt the system before I was persuaded, through much hard labor, of its truth. And this system proves itself right again and again by its reasonable interpretations, especially of passages of Scripture that focus on doctrines and events of the first rank.
A system that purports to solve problems by a great sweep is attractive to persons who like singularity more than complexity, and relaxation more than labor. Imagine: so many prophecies thought unsolvable, redirected through one easy channel! a system with more unifying force in eschatology than the theories of Einstein in science! Its design is to draw prophecies to itself to receive the simple explanation of the year A. D. 70. But lo! “The Guillotine was not originally designed with any view to what turned out to be its most important characteristic—the great numbers of victims that it could dispose of in a short space of time: it is curious, and ought to be to theorists an instructive lesson, that this bloody implement was at first proposed on a combined principle of justice and mercy” (John Wilson Croker, History of the Guillotine, p. 7.) The cure of beheading became worse than the alleged disease of hanging. Similarly, full preterism is worse than what it claims to be a fix for. It may become a convenient mode, not to solve prophetic puzzles, but to smooth the way toward hell for thousands of inconstant professors. It can roll from place to place like a Guillotine could, only faster. It may roll from city to city and from site to site, drawing souls away from the faith without bother of removing heads. Full preterism is no innocuous belief. Prophecy is not a frivolous matter. The second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment of the world are doctrines and events that souls must live on, or else die forever without. To knit and gossip around a Guillotine, as certain women did during the Reign of Terror in France, is no way to stop the blade from falling. Full preterists must be warned before they lose their everlasting souls. It may be, since men choose to trifle instead of learn what they should believe, that the Lord is dispatching a Robespierre or two in the midst, to take multitudes down in their folly. Strong delusions are sent by God to deal with persons who amuse themselves with lies when they should receive the truth; and their false believing issues in damnation (2 Thessalonians 2.) This is not unlike a person who wills to believe, against mounting evidence, that there is a plague when there isn’t one, only to be given over by God to further believe that he needs a vaccine, which vaccine ends up killing him.
In the French Revolution it was shown that a cheek, when slapped, will blush after its head is severed. In like manner, dead bodies will blush with life when the Lord comes back to resurrect. And what comes after but the final judgment? To have died a full preterist will be to have died in faith that is vain instead of saving. There is a resurrection unto damnation; full preterism is a damnable heresy; many bodies, no doubt, will be raised to be damned because of an allegiance to it.
Professing Christians who are most in danger of falling for the full preterist heresy are persons who have become exhausted by all the false predictions of prophecy pundits and their pulp prophecy books. This includes, especially, professing Christians who hold Pentecostal beliefs. This kind of professing Christian acts like, even if he does not say so, as if the Bible may be, not only contradicted, but superseded by his subjective connection with the Holy Ghost. That his beliefs may contradict the Bible poses no more problem to his mind than the clash between verses in the Koran troubles the Muslim.
Full preterism is a foolish, perilous heresy. Those who travel down this road risk losing their path toward heaven. There are certain doctrines and events that we, as professing Christians, are obligated to believe. To not believe that the Lord is coming back to resurrect and to judge is to disbelieve some of the most fundamental matters of religion in the Bible. Resurrection is the completion of redemption. It is called ‘the redemption of the body.’ Can a person be saved while disbelieving in redemption? The notion that one can seems blasphemous. “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Peter 3.4.) To the full preterist, the promise has been fulfilled, and we didn’t even know it. But the second coming of Jesus Christ is not in the past. It still stretches out in the future because the Lord “is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (verse 9.) This extension of mercy does not exclude the full preterist, as sacrilegious as his heresies are; any full preterist who is among the elect will, in the fullness of his time on earth, repent and receive correction. The longer he puts repentance and learning off, the more he should suspect that it has not been decreed from eternity that he enter the kingdom of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment