[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[GENTRY] First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside of the creedal orthodoxy of Christianity. No creed allows any Second Advent in A.D. 70. No creed allows any other type of resurrection than a bodily one. Historic creeds speak of the universal, personal judgment of all men, not of a representative judgment in A.D. 70.

First – Since when did the label “heterodox” (different doctrine) get re-defined in terms of conformity with the creeds? The Reformers were very careful to define “orthodoxy,” “heterodoxy,” and “heresy” in terms of conformity or non-conformity with Scripture. Who says anyone’s orthodoxy must be judged by conformity with uninspired documents that came into existence many years and even centuries after inspiration ceased? Gentry has put himself in close proximity to the Romanist position (the pope above or on a par with Scripture) by allowing the creeds to be the standard by which we judge orthodoxy (“straight doctrine”). That is putting uninspired human interpretations into a position above or on a par with Scripture. It is the same thing as Romanism, except the Romanists put a man (the pope) in that position instead of the creeds. The Reformers would not have tolerated such a compromise of the sola Scriptura and tota scriptura principles. Gentry’s appeal here is to the creeds. True Reformers should cry “foul” at this point. Something can be in-line with human creeds and still not be “ortho” with Scripture (and vice versa). Now, I’m not suggesting the creeds and historic traditions of the church don’t have a valid utility in helping us understand the truth of Scripture. But their interpretations should never be set up as an ultimate standard of authority for judging what is orthodox with Scripture. Only Scripture has that kind of absolute authority. Our “doctrines” (doxy) must be “straight” (ortho) in line with Scripture, but not necessarily with the interpretations in the creeds. So, Gentry is out of bounds using the creeds as the basis for his decision about whether something is orthodox. Scripture alone is to be used for that purpose.

I am surprised at Gentry’s hesitancy to believe the historic church could have missed a few things. The Reformers (and theonomists) had no difficulty rationalizing their formulation (or re-formulation) of new doctrines and creedal statements which the early church would not necessarily have understood, believed or agreed with. David Green shared this material from Gary North’s book, Dominion and Common Grace, to illustrate what I’m saying here:

On the linear, progressive character of church history, Gary North had this to say in his book, Dominion and Common Grace:

There has also been progress. We see this especially in the progress of the Christian creeds. Look at the Apostles’ Creed. Then look at the Westminster Confession of Faith. Only a fool or a heretic would deny theological progress. ...The creeds have been steadily improved. [Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace, Chapter 4, Van Til's Version of Common Grace, Differentiation and Progress, pg. 101.]

Van Til ...was unwilling to challenge the older Reformed creeds on this point (natural law as a “common ground” link between covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers), ...His ideas have made creedal revision mandatory, but he was unwilling to call publicly for a revision of the creeds leading to more biblically precise definitions of such seventeenth-century concepts as “general equity” “moral law,” and “the covenant of works.” (Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace, Chapter 5, Eschatology and Biblical Law, Postmillennialism and Common Grace, Van Til's Dilemma, pg. 115)

The church’s creeds improve over time. This, in turn, gives Christians cultural power. Is it any wonder that the Westminster Confession of Faith was drawn up at the high point of the Puritans’ control of England. ...It was the Reformation that made possible modern science and technology. (Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace, Chapter 7, Epistemological Self-Consciousness and Cooperation, pg. 182)

To sum up: North says that if there is really ethical/epistemological/cultural progress in history because of Christ's favor and gifts in behalf of His Church, then there must necessarily be “improvements” and “revisions” in the creeds, even in the ecumenical creeds! To deny this one must be a “fool or a heretic.”

Of course, North is not advocating changing any of the Biblical content of the creeds or confessions, but rather merely the interpretations and applications that have been added to the Biblical material, the same way full preterists are. Are the Reformers and reconstructionists the only ones who have the right to formulate new creeds, catechisms and confessional statements? And if the earlier creeds, confessions and catechisms were such infallible bastions of orthodoxy, why did the Reformers in various European countries compose new ones or make changes to them? Why did American churches go further to revise them again? Reconstructionists have added more on top of that. Full preterists are Reformers, and as such it should be obvious that we believe the early church and the creeds can be (and have been found to be) mistaken. Isn’t that what the word “reform” implies? Even Gentry’s own little tract entitled, The Usefulness of Creeds, notes that the creeds contain more than just biblical content. He admits they contain “interpretations and applications” of Scripture. I am certainly not suggesting that the Biblical content of the creeds is mistaken. That would be charging Scripture with error. But, I am saying that our “interpretations and applications” of Scripture can be and often are mistaken. And when centuries of further Bible study reveals that there are some problems in our “interpretations and applications” of Scripture, we owe it to ourselves and posterity to correct those errors and reform our creeds to reflect this better way of interpreting and applying the Bible, and to do so as quickly as possible, lest an erroneous creed be appealed to as an ancient boundary which must not be moved.

The idea that the harlot of Revelation is the Roman Catholic Church and that the Beast is the Pope, has been a very dear belief (credo) of many Reformers for the last four hundred years, and was even included in both the Belgic (Art. 36) and the Westminster (Ch. 25, Par. 6) confessions, the latter of which Gentry’s denomination supposedly holds to rigidly. People died for that interpretation. Gentry is obviously not in “strict subscription” to the WCF, since his commentary on Revelation teaches the Beast was Nero. Why didn’t Gentry stick with it? Who gave him the freedom to reform it? This is an eschatological “interpretation and application” of Scripture. Is he the only one who has the right to interpret and apply Scripture in a different way than past generations? He has come up with a different interpretation of the time and nature of fulfillment of these endtime events. If he has the right to correct errors in previous generations’ eschatological concepts, why don’t we? He has not questioned the biblical content of the creeds (the actual events themselves), and neither have we. He still believes Scripture predicted the return of Christ and the other eschatological events, but he reinterprets the time and nature of the fulfillment of those events. He has added his own “interpretation and application” of the time and nature of fulfillment. If he has the right to do that, so does everyone else.

To be “outside creedal orthodoxy” is not the same as being outside biblical orthodoxy. One can be biblically orthodox without being creedally orthodox if the creeds have any biblically un-orthodox “interpretations and applications” in them. That is exactly the case here. Gentry and I both subscribe to the same list of biblical events and doctrines in the creeds. The difference is the time and nature of fulfillment “interpretations” that have been applied to those doctrines. Gentry seems to think full preterists are tampering with the biblical material in the creeds, when in fact we are only correcting the erroneous interpretations that have crept into them. There is a big difference.

Gentry says, “No creed allows...”. This is an important issue, but the crucial question must always be whether Scripture allows for different interpretations and applications of the eschatological texts. On the basis of Gentry’s assertions here, it could be argued that the creeds don’t allow any kind of coming of Jesus at AD 70. This presents a problem for Gentry, since he does believe there was some kind of coming of Christ at AD 70. Do the creeds allow him that freedom? One of the fundamental presuppositions of the Reformation was that very allowance of different interpretations and applications of the biblical content in the creeds. What Gentry has done here is to say that there is no other possible way to interpret the time and nature of fulfillment of the biblical eschatological events than a physical, visible, “personal,” “bodily” one (and still be orthodox with Scripture). This sounds like the premillennial dispensationalists who are so certain that the kingdom of Heaven is not here yet, simply because they haven’t seen it with their eyes. Gentry differs with their view in regard to the time and nature of fulfillment, yet believes in the same list of eschatological events as they do. Are he and they the only ones who have the freedom to interpret and apply Scripture differently? Full preterists are not inventing a new list of eschatological events to substitute for the list in the creeds. We have the same list of biblical events (the same biblical content in the creeds). We just differ on the time and nature of their fulfillment, just as the premillennial dispensationalists do. If there is no freedom for the full preterist “interpretations and applications,” there is no freedom for Gentry’s or anyone else’s, no matter how slightly or radically different they are from the creeds.

It is one thing to say that the creedal writers did not come up with the same interpretation of those events as we have, but quite another to say that their interpretation is the only correct one. Again, we are not questioning the biblical content of the creeds, but merely the time and nature “interpretations and applications” of that content. Gentry seems to ascribe virtual infallibility (inspiration) to the creeds. This should make any true Reformer shudder. The Westminster Confession did not go that far. It recognized that it could have missed some things and allowed for revision and correction. Just compare the breadth and depth of scholarship sitting on the Westminster Assembly to the men involved in the various ecumenical councils. If a document so late as the WCF has errors in it, why can’t we believe earlier documents which do not stand on as much interpretative efforts or depth of scholarship can also be mistaken in some of their interpretations and applications?

Ken Davies reminded me that “the subject of eschatology was never debated by any of the ecumenical councils.” As Jim Jordan has well said (Biblical Chronology, “Problems With New Testament History,” Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan. 1993, p. 1):

Finally, though the Church Fathers are “fathers” in a sense, and are of real value to us, they are also the “Church Babies” in another sense. All this should be born in mind when it comes to their haphazard testimony... [emphasis added]

How much confidence and authority can we place upon the church “fathers” and their creeds in those doctrinal areas (like eschatology) that they really spent little time with? What is the danger of putting the creeds into an authoritative position? Isn’t it doing the same thing as the Pharisees were doing (“invalidating the Word of God for the sake of their traditions”)? David Chilton read J. S. Russell’s book (The Parousia) while he was at Tyler back in the mid-80’s, but he told me that his allegiance to the creeds at that time prevented him from accepting Russell’s full preterist position. But in the last two years of his life he began to see that the creeds could be mistaken, and that Scripture alone is qualified to be our authority and guide in matters of true Biblical orthodoxy. He closely examined Eastern Orthodoxy, but backed away when he began to see where it leads (away from the absolute authority of Scripture and away from the need to reform). Creedalism moves one toward either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, and several within the Reformed camp have already gone down that path (e.g. Franky Schaeffer, Jerry Mattiticks, Scott Hahn, and others). This is exactly the danger of Gentry’s position. If his creedal stance is followed consistently to its logical end, it would force him out of Reformed theology into either Romanism or Orthodoxy. Several others (e.g. Andrew Sandlin, Jim West, John Campbell, et al) have similarly expressed their allegiance to the creeds. They shouldn’t be surprised later when some of their disciples apply their creedal ideas consistently and leave the Reformed (and always reforming) faith.

The real question that must be addressed is whether the Bible (not the creeds) allows “any second advent in AD 70,” and “any other type of resurrection than a bodily one.” Just because the creeds may not allow it, does not mean the Bible does not allow it. Disagreement with the creeds only points to a possible problem. The determination of whether it is a fatal problem must be made on the basis of Scripture alone (sola Scriptura and tota scriptura). It seems that Gentry does not even want to consider that possibility. He is content with the creedal interpretations. He seems to assume that no other interpretation of the nature of fulfillment is Biblically possible or defensible. This response certainly aims to challenge his assumptions and presuppositions in that regard.

[GENTRY] It would be most remarkable if the entire church that came through A.D. 70 missed the proper understanding of the eschaton and did not realize its members had been resurrected! And that the next generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years?

It is evident that most within early Christianity missed the full significance of AD 70. The question is, why? The early church was so intimately involved in the events, they couldn’t see the big picture like an outsider or historian can. Like a person down in the middle of a forest, they can’t see the whole forest because the trees right around them block their field of vision. The early church failed to recognize just how pivotal the events of the first generation of Christianity were. They just didn’t sense the bigger picture. We are in a similar situation today. Historians will love to write profound things about how pivotal the Twentieth Century has been. In one century we have gone from horse and buggy to space shuttles, lunar landings and planetary probes; and from signal fires, smoke signals, and pony express to telephone, satellite communications, computers and email. The magnitude and pace of change in this century is nothing short of staggering. But we who have lived through it quite often fail to realize just how truly revolutionary it really has been. The same thing happened in the first century. They just didn’t grasp the significance and implications of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

It is indeed “most remarkable” that mainline Christianity has overlooked the full implications of AD 70, but that doesn’t mean the eschatological fulfillment didn’t occur just because the Jews or the Christians didn’t recognize it. Many of the fulfillments Gentry claims in his commentary on Revelation cannot be documented using Scripture. He has to rely on eye-witnesses and contemporary historians to support his first century interpretation. He has come up with some applications of the book of Revelation that I have not seen in any other Christian writings heretofore. Should we throw those out merely because they are innovations? Or do we check them against Scripture and history to see if they make reasonable sense? The principles Gentry is using here against the full preterist view could be applied to his own “untraditional” opinions about the date of Revelation and its first century fulfillment. In fact, some of the Reformed theologians present at the 1993 Covenant Eschatology Symposium suggested that very thing. Some of them questioned Gentry’s interpretations and applications quite closely. Gentry is trying to paint himself as being radically different from full preterists, yet totally in harmony with creedal and confessional interpretations. He is not as far from the full preterist view as he tries to make others believe, and he has his own set of differences to justify, and must do so using the same kind of approach full preterists are using.

If we granted Gentry’s presuppositions about the nature of the “second advent,” “bodily resurrection,” and “personal judgment,” we might arrive at the same conclusions he has. However, what if his presuppositions about the time and nature of fulfillment are not orthodox with Scripture? What if it can be shown that the historic church failed to comprehend the correct time and nature of fulfillment of biblical eschatology? This may be surprising, and probably unsettling for many of us, but it is much less disastrous to our faith than the alternatives suggested by Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann and Bertrand Russell. We have to do something with the imminency of the NT. If we don’t take a full preterist approach, we leave the integrity of Jesus and the NT writers utterly defenseless. Certainly, it impugns the interpretative accuracy of the historic church in matters of eschatology, but as R. C. Sproul observed, “...people have attacked the credibility of Jesus. Maybe some Church Fathers made a mistake. Maybe our favorite theologians have made mistakes. I can abide with that. I can’t abide with Jesus being a false prophet.” [We need to state it clearly for the record that R. C. Sproul, Sr. is not a full preterist, but he does see a lot of merit in the partial preterist approach similar to Ken Gentry.] When the mid-second century church confronted the seeming non-fulfillment of the supposedly imminent eschatological events, they decided to re-interpret the time statements instead of re-examine their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment. Justin Martyr, Shepherd of Hermas and Clement of Rome all postulated the idea of an indefinite postponement. They tampered with the time of fulfillment, rather than change their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment. To this date, the historic church has never fully recovered from that early and fundamental error. They could just as easily have questioned their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment, and if they had, we might not be having this debate today.

So, in response to Gentry’s question about whether most of the historic “Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian eschatology for its first 1900 years,” I would have to answer this way: The historic church understood that its soteriology was fully consummated by the advent of Christ and His establishment of the Church. What it did not realize is that eschatology was nothing more than the final consummating events of its soteriology. They disconnected eschatology from soteriology (because of their presuppositions about the physical nature of fulfillment), and thus failed to see the eschatological fulfillments. They saw the spiritual fulfillment of soteriology, but continued looking for a physical, visible and materialistic fulfillment of eschatology – the same way the Jews missed the soteriological fulfillments. The early church knew that the true Israel was no longer defined racially and nationalistically, and was now universal in scope, but many of them (esp. the Ebionites, Montanists, and other chiliasts) kept on thinking this “new” universal Israel had a materialistic paradise in its imminent future. They never seemed willing to question their presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment of eschatology. The early church fathers who were apologists against the Jews are the best source for illustrations of this problem. (See especially Athanasius’ On The Incarnation and his Festal Letters). Athanasius posited complete fulfillment of all soteriological events in conjunction with the (singular) advent/parousia of Christ and the establishment of the church in the generation leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. He spoke of the victory over death (which is an eschatological event) in soteriological terms, failing to see the inconsistency of disconnecting it from its eschatological implications. How can the final soteriological enemy (Death) be conquered if the other final events of eschatology (i.e. the parousia, resurrection, judgment, etc.) have not also been consummated? This is the very inconsistency these beloved brethren never quite grasped. Even today, Bible interpreters have difficulty seeing this inconsistency. The confusion is even more apparent when one studies the various positions different branches of the church have taken in regard to where people go at death and what their state is there until the resurrection and judgment. Yet through all this, the historic church has allowed diversity of opinion on the “interpretations and applications” of the time and nature of fulfillment of the Biblical eschatological events. So, why is Gentry now trying to anathematize us for exercising that freedom?

For more information about the eschatological beliefs of the early church and how full preterists handle creedal issues, the reader is encouraged to obtain and read the articles by Edward E. Stevens entitled, “The Early Church and The Creeds” and “What If The Creeds Are Wrong?” They are available as a set from Kingdom Publications for a donation of $5 including postage. These articles deal with the rest of Gentry’s objections based on the creeds and the historic church, and show when the mistakes were made, who made them and why. It should not surprise us that the early church missed some things. I am at a loss to explain how Montanism, chiliasm, sacerdotalism, the doctrine of purgatory, indulgences, Maryolatry, baptismal regeneration, Arianism, Pelagianism, and a host of other departures from biblical orthodoxy could ever develop in the church. How do we explain the Ebionites failing to recognize the “change of law” that occurred, or the rejection of the deity of Christ by some of the Nazarene (Jewish) sects and the Arians? How could the Montanists have so much success in their teaching that Montanus was the inspired mouthpiece of the Paraclete and that the charismata were still around? There didn’t seem to be very many who recognized any kind of “coming in judgment” at AD 70 (like Gentry and many other amils and postmils do). How does any error get into the church and stay around for so long? How could the church miss it on so many things? Why haven’t the Roman and Greek churches abandoned all their errors in view of the great reforms clearly delineated by the Protestant Reformers? In view of this, it seems obvious that the vast majority of Christians overlooked the fulfillment of eschatology at AD 70. The church has always had difficulty defining and maintaining orthodoxy. But, there are bright spots in the patristic writings which do show that some Christians in the early centuries understood eschatology as having been accomplished in at least a soteriological sense. But even if none of them had, it would not disqualify a better understanding of biblical truth if one comes along. Our faith rests on inspired biblical truth, not on uninspired interpretations and applications in the creeds.