We often hear questions like: “How does the preterist view affect the creeds?” “How do preterists deal with the fact that creeds do not teach a preterist view of Last Things?” Here we deal with the creeds in light of the preterist view. When we speak of creeds we mainly refer to the four statements of faith that have become known as the “ecumenical creeds” developed in the third, fourth and fifth centuries (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedon). According to Philip Schaff in Volume I of his The Creeds of Christendom (p. 13), these four creeds contain:

...the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation. They embody the results of the great doctrinal controversies of the Nicene and post-Nicene ages.

The word creed comes from the Latin word credo which simply means “I believe.” A creed is a statement of faith. All of us have creeds, whether we like it or not, and whether we recognize it or not. We make creeds every time we use the words “I believe.” Every preacher and Bible class teacher makes creeds when they state what they believe the Bible teaches. Schaff reminds us that “catechisms, liturgies, and hymn-books are creeds also as far as they embody doctrine.” (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, pp. 7-9) Some claim they “have no creed but Scripture,” but,

...experience teaches that those sects which reject all creeds are as much under the authority of a traditional system or of certain favorite writers, and as much exposed to controversy, division, and change, as churches with formal creeds. Neither creed nor no-creed can be an absolute protection of the purity of faith and practice. (Creeds of Christendom Vol. I, pp.7-9).

Originally the creeds were formulated to determine orthodoxy. A second purpose was to establish the basis of fellowship and unity. But their first priority was to clarify what truths were essential in order to exclude heresy:

The ecumenical councils of the early church were in their purpose and nature very different from the modern councils and ecumenical efforts of the church. First, the early councils had as their primary purpose the defense and establishment of truth, not unity. Unity had to be established on the foundation of truth, not truth as a product of unity. (R. J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order, p. 19, 20).

But unity never really came. Maybe it was because they placed too much authority and too many expectations upon the creeds. Some felt the creeds didn’t cover all the areas they considered essential for salvation or fellowship. Others felt the creeds went too far. Schaff shows how later creedal efforts went way beyond the original intentions:

...The first object of creeds was to distinguish the Church from the world, from Jews and heathen, afterwards orthodoxy from heresy, and finally denomination from denomination. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, pp. 7-9)

Unity was one of the outcomes hoped for, but by using the creeds to define “orthodoxy,” they became a cause of division and exclusiveness. Creeds have unnecessarily crystallized ideas and opinions into rigid doctrinal absolutes and theological agendas which invited disputants to polarize and divide rather than tolerate differences or arrive at a united consensus. “Orthodoxy” was more determined by how many bishops believed a certain way (majority vote) and by how powerful in influence they were (power politics) than by correct exegesis of Scripture, reason and fairness. Such abuse is always a temptation when powerful institutions have control of the creeds.

Creeds have a way of occupying the best theological minds in unproductive pursuits. Even Luther was a victim:

Luther was making progress toward a full understanding of New Testament truth until 1529 when he was forced to write his first creed. For after formulating his doctrine in creedal form he was forced to spend the rest of his life defending what he had written. ...Defending creeds, which at best can only contain partial truth, has constantly been a hindrance to unity and true undenominationalism. (F. W. Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom, pp. 252, 253, emphasis added)

There is nothing wrong with defending our beliefs (creeds). Such interaction with competing ideas can be very productive as long as we don’t bind our opinions on each other. But when our creeds have been shown to be wrong or inadequate we should be willing to discard or rewrite them. The councils and creeds functioned as forums of communication to promote tolerance between the far-flung outposts of the Eastern and Western churches. Unfortunately the results of these councils (the creeds) were made binding rather than just held as opinions. Instead of being a place where they could study and understand each other better, it degenerated into an exclusiveness which shut out any who disagreed with the most institutionally powerful view. Creeds used wrongly became a source of division and disruption of fellowship. This can happen when creeds are elevated as essentials for everyone to adhere to, instead of being seen as an expression of the state of understanding at that time. It is not extreme opinions that disrupt unity as much as it is the exclusive way those opinions are pushed. Extreme views are much more likely to be tolerated if those who hold them are tolerant of other views.

Perhaps no one has focused on the problem facing strict 70 AD preterists regarding creeds any more clearly than the Reconstructionist David Chilton in his book, Paradise Restored (pub. 1985, pp. 138, 139). Chilton is preterist in much of his approach to eschatology in general, but doesn’t see all final events consummated by 70 AD. He uses the futurist slant of the creeds to rule out any possible validity for the strict 70 AD preterist view:

...some have supposed that all eschatological events must have been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and that the Second Coming took place then. ...Is such an interpretation valid? We should note, at least in passing, that the Church through all the ages has never allowed for such a view. All the creeds have declared the future coming of Christ, the resurrection of all men, and the general judgment to be fundamental, non-negotiable articles of the Christian faith. The closing words of the Athanasian Creed (one of the three universal creeds of the faith) underscore the importance of these truths... [emphasis added]

He makes similar statements in The Days of Vengeance, pp. 264, 531, where he labels the strict 70 AD preterist view as “heretical” and says it is “not in conformity with any recognizable form of orthodox Christianity.”

The heresy label Chilton applies to the strict 70 AD preterist view cannot be taken seriously unless we place an inordinate amount of authority on the creeds. There are two issues involved here: 1) Are the futurist statements in the creeds correct? 2) How authoritative are they? There is nothing wrong with having creeds. The problem comes when we enthrone those creeds as equal in authority with Scripture and use them for defining justification, testing orthodoxy and setting the limits of fellowship. Only Scripture deserves that kind of authority and function. Creeds allow for different doctrinal positions on the TIMING of eschatological events, but even if they didn’t, it’s not a problem unless they have equal authority with Scripture.

What does Chilton mean by “orthodox”? It must never be defined as conformity to a creed (as it seems Chilton is doing). Being “straight” (ortho) in our “doctrine” (doxy) depends NOT on other peoples’ beliefs (creeds), but on the revealed will of God (sola Scriptura). When laid alongside the Bible (not the creeds) our doxy (doctrine) must go ortho (straight) in the same direction. The debate over orthodoxy can only be settled by an appeal to the Bible. Truth is not determined by a majority vote of scholars at a council or the declarations of some creed, but by the Word of God (sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura).

Chilton also says that “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church has always and everywhere insisted on the doctrine of the Last Judgment at the end of time.” (Days of Vengeance, p. 531. emphasis added). Are we to assume Chilton has read everything written by the whole church “always and everywhere”? Has he read all 400 volumes of the Latin and Greek fathers in Migne’s Patrology? I would suspect he hasn’t even read all 40 volumes of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers translated into English. Is there a chance that some of the early writers (such as Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius) might have made some preterist statements? We plan to present some of their incredible comments in upcoming articles in this series.

In Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart’s response to Dave Hunt, The Reduction of Christianity, p. 17, they explain the limitations of using the creeds to determine orthodoxy in matters of eschatology. Notice especially the last sentence in this quote:

If we use creeds to mark the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy, as the church has always done, we have no basis for making one’s millennial view a test of his orthodoxy. And, if we don’t use the creeds, what shall we use? Creeds are not infallible, because they were written by fallible men. Thus we can and should reform the creeds as necessary, or write new ones. Until that time, we must depend on existing creeds. One of the purposes of this book is to show that the [preterist] eschatological views that Mr. Hunt criticizes are well within the bounds of historic orthodoxy. One’s millennial position is important, but we should not say that those who disagree with us are heretical. (emphasis added)

Here is an open admission that the creeds have been used to “mark the boundary between orthodoxy and heresy.” This should never have been. Such an abuse has contributed heavily to the massive division among Christians. Their admonition that different views of the millennium should not be labeled “heretical” needs serious consideration. In answer to their question about “what shall we use” if we don’t use the creeds, I suspect the best Protestant and Reformed answer to that should be sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura! Using creeds to determine orthodoxy has been a major problem all along. Their suggestion of reforming the creeds or writing new ones is intriguing, especially since the early creeds merely reflected the very limited state of understanding to that point. As understanding gets clearer the creeds will have to be rewritten.

Other Reconstructionists apparently do not agree with Chilton on his use of the creeds to label strict 70 AD preterists, since some of them more recently have moved closer to the strict 70 AD preterist position. Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, in The Reduction of Christianity (pp. 15, 16), under the subhead, “Creeds and Eschatology,” suggest that the creeds do not necessarily rule out the possibility of a basic preterist approach:

It is important to recognize that the historic creeds of the church do not include anything about the millennium, the rapture, the Antichrist, or the great tribulation. The creeds mention “individual eschatology,” such as the resurrection of the body and everlasting life. They also say that Christ will return again in judgment. Yet, as far as the creeds are concerned, the timing of Christ’s second coming is a matter of doctrinal freedom: The creeds did not bind any believer to a particular millennial position. [emphasis added]

Is “the timing of Christ’s second coming a matter of doctrinal freedom?” How far are they willing to take that statement? Far enough to include those who place the timing of Christ’s return in the past at 70 AD? Granted, all the early creedal statements pointed to a yet future return. The question is whether that belief is correct, and how much weight we place on the creeds’ opinions in this regard. How much had they studied eschatology before they formulated those statements in the creeds? Is there any chance their opinions were mistaken and need to be reformed or rewritten? We don’t believe the futurist creedal statements came from careful enough study. It is time to reform them.

After A.D. 70, the focus of theological study shifted to the relationship of the three Persons of the Godhead and the nature of Christ as both human and Divine. These were the burning issues the councils felt compelled to clarify in the early creeds. Eschatology was barely dealt with. Even though no particular view of eschatology was defined, there is a definite future slant to creedal eschatology statements. The NT teaches a future resurrection, judgment, coming and end because those events hadn’t happened before it was written. The creeds reflect that same futurist perspective, seemingly unaware the events had occurred at 70 AD. A preterist has no problem with these futurist statements because he agrees that the NT taught a yet future occurrence of those events, and it is merely the NT’s perspective that is being reflected in the creeds. The creeds merely state that the events would occur sometime, but they don’t specify when. So, even if the creeds are authoritative, they cannot label the preterist view as anti-creedal because TIMING of final events does not seem to have been a high priority in the formation of the creeds.

How much authority do the creeds really have? The discussion to this point has assumed creeds occupy a position of substantial authority for Christians of all ages. Creeds have tremendous value as theological models and teaching tools, because they tell us what the church understood at various points in its history. Their value is unquestionable, but their authority is quite another matter. But why do preterists question the authority of the creeds? It seems strange to me that any reformer today would put a human document on a par with Scripture, since many of our forefathers gave their blood to advance the reformation plea of Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura (only Scripture and all of Scripture). They protested the pope’s and the catholic church’s insistence on possessing equal authority with scripture. If we give the creeds similar authoritative status, we unconditionally surrender to the pope’s claims, and contradict much of what the Reformation stood for. There is nothing wrong with having creeds unless we set them up as an authoritative standard equal with Scripture and require adherence to them. So, even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don’t), it would not be an overwhelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valuable because of their antiquity. The real test for the preterist view is how it harmonizes with Scripture, not with the creeds.

The preterist view is not anti-creedal. It could be non-creedal (not definitively dealt with in the creeds), but it is not anti-creedal (against the essence of the creeds). We certainly agree that the councils did not make any one millennial formula a litmus test. Since they didn’t, it might be wise to think twice before we do it today; because it might just be ruling out the possibility of our own views.

I don’t think anyone could summarize both the limited authority and usefulness of creeds quite as well as Philip Schaff in Volume I of The Creeds of Christendom (pages 7-9, emphasis added):

In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols [creeds], as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not coordinate with, but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. ...Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. ...The Greek Church, and still more the Roman Church, regarding the Bible and tradition as two coordinate sources of truth and rules of faith, claim absolute and infallible authority for their confessions of faith. ...Confessions, in due subordination to the Bible, are of great value and use. They are summaries of the doctrines of the Bible, aids to its sound understanding, bonds of union among their professors, public standards and guards against false doctrine and practice. ...The whole authority and use of symbolical books has been opposed and denied, especially by Socinians, Quakers, Unitarians, and Rationalists. It is objected that they obstruct the free interpretation of the Bible and the progress of theology; that they interfere with the liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment; that they engender hypocrisy, intolerance, and bigotry; that they produce division and distraction; that they perpetuate religious animosity and the curse of sectarianism.... The objections have some force in those State Churches which allow no liberty for dissenting organizations, or when the creeds are virtually put above the Scriptures instead of being subordinated to them. But the creeds, as such, are no more responsible for abuses than the Scriptures themselves, of which they profess to be merely a summary or an exposition. [emphasis added]

The orthodoxy of the creeds must constantly be tested by each new generation. Creeds were developed after the NT and are based on questionable interpretive methods. The NT is both inspired and orthodox, but creeds are not inspired nor necessarily orthodox. A good test of orthodoxy for a creed is not just whether it is (believed to be) in harmony with the inspired Scriptures, but whether it properly relates/applies to the age of the Kingdom that we are now in.

The understanding of the historical church can be and often has been wrong on many issues. Nothing developed since the apostles is “orthodox” unless it can be shown to be exactly what the apostles instituted for the post-70 AD eternal kingdom. Just because the apostles may have taught something doesn’t mean it was meant for every age of God’s kingdom. For instance, the miraculous gifts were a temporary situation until the perfect came. Those gifts are no longer applicable to us today. It is not enough to know that the apostles taught or practiced something. We must also know the time period those teachings and practices were applicable for.

Who actually agrees with tradition on every doctrinal question? There is not a one of us who follows the “traditional” beliefs on every single point. All of us have diverged away from ancient traditions and creeds to positions we all claim are “more in tune with the Scriptures.” Scriptures are the ultimate source of our beliefs, not creedal formulas. Tradition didn’t even agree on everything consistently. There wasn’t a uniform position on every doctrine in early tradition. There were a lot of differences of opinion allowed. So, even if we do agree with tradition on every point, it doesn’t guarantee we are right. Truth is not determined by a majority vote of early church fathers!

We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony or C. S. Lewis. The opinions of such wise and Godly men all have much value, but not Biblical authority. They are useful, but not canonical. As stated in Gary DeMar’s The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (p. 103):

Charles Ryrie, a noted dispensationalist, writes [Dispensationalism Today, p. 14]: “The ultimate test of the truth of any doctrine is whether it is in accord with the Biblical revelation. The fact that the church taught something in the first century does not make it true, and likewise if the church did not teach something until the twentieth century, it is not necessarily false.” We agree that historical arguments are helpful and interesting, but they are not normative nor authoritative. The rallying cry today should be, sola scriptura, Scripture alone.

It is also possible for creeds to have been overly extreme in their reaction to problems in their day which could make them an aberration and be irrelevant for later periods of the church. If the councils had stayed with how the Scriptures stated things, they could have avoided some of those difficulties. The new circumstances and better understanding of later generations will expose those anomalies.

It is not only possible for something formulated in early centuries to be incorrect, but also for something not understood until modern times to be orthodox. No creeds can be taken for granted. A better understanding will constantly be developed. It’s time to quit defending possibly misguided church traditions and continue trying to grasp the correct application of Scripture for the Kingdom today.

There is nothing new being revealed today. God’s absolute truth has been completely revealed. There is nothing more that can be added. However, man is yet to fully understand the truth that has been fully revealed. That better understanding is an on-going progressive enterprise. Sure, we comprehend the essentials about who Christ is and what He has done for humanity. But, beyond that lies a vast (or infinite?) body of only dimly perceived concepts, only some of which are beginning to be discovered. And, no matter how far we advance into a thorough grasp of God’s truth, we will always be just standing on the threshold of an even better understanding. Truly, the ways of God are infinite and are “past finding out.”

Progress in our understanding has happened since the First Century. As a result of the mistakes of the church for the last 1900 years, we are constantly gaining a much clearer idea of what Jesus had in mind when He built His Kingdom. So, the history of those mistakes has tremendous value for us as a learning experience; but those creedal formulations, institutions and traditions should never be considered equal in authority with Scripture (since they are constantly being made obsolete by an even better understanding). Our understanding of truth is getting more refined as history progresses. Why would we want to keep holding onto concepts that have been shown to be inadequate or faulty?

We must continue the efforts of the reformation, restoration and reconstruction movements as they are redefined and redirected by the preterist approach. They started out as unity movements among all denominations.

We need to constantly be pursuing that unity. In eschatology, maybe unity is not so much doctrinal conformity, but attitude. Too many Christians just have not matured to the point of allowing and tolerating differences of opinions – nor of studying things out for themselves without their favorite brotherhood preacher telling them exactly what to believe. It is no wonder there is so much divisiveness. Christians of different opinions can work together and help each other without compromising their individual beliefs. This kind of unity of attitude is needed so much today. Unity is not so much agreement to a list of doctrines (a creed), but rather an attitude of charity (agreeableness) and tolerance which gives freedom to differ without making a test of fellowship over it.

We must try to avoid creating more sects if possible. There are enough already. In the spirit of the reformers, restorationists and reconstructionists, we simply must be a unifying factor among all denominations. Preterists have no desire to form new groups and splinter God’s Kingdom further. But, formation of more groups seems unavoidable and inevitable, because some existing groups will not allow us to stay within them. We should stay where we are as long as we are edifying to others and being edified by them. If we are forced out of present groups, then there is no recourse but to form new ones. Let such new groups never become exclusive like the groups they were forced out of and teach that the preterist view is essential to justification and fellowship. Eschatology is an important issue which does have major doctrinal implications, but those implications are not in the area of essentials. Non-preterist believers in Christ can be every bit as much followers of Christ as preterists are. The Kingdom of God is manifested in their lives by God’s grace the same as in ours. If the preterist view ever becomes the most popular eschatological approach, there will be a temptation for preterists to crystallize around it and exclude any who espouse a non-preterist view. We must never fall into that trap.

Nor should we prohibit further study. If progress in our understanding is to be made, the atmosphere must be free for a hearty, fresh, continuing study. There is a long way to go yet and this generation will not solve all the problems. Each generation needs to go as far as it can. If we stop studying now, we may well be stopping short of some major implications. We must keep study open-ended, and not make the mistake some of the reformers and restorationists did by canonizing their opinions and excluding all who did not agree. We must not crystallize when we have only just begun to see some of the possible implications.

Just as it would have been a mistake to lock out any further study of things in the 2nd, 5th, 16th, or 19th centuries, so it is today. Those movements didn’t arrive at a complete understanding of all truth. Each of them made substantial contributions to the overall effort to completely understand.

I like the advice Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, gave to the Sanhedrin, “stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action should be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God” (Acts 5:38, 39). Let the preterist view be heard and studied – if there is nothing to it, it will be unproductive eventually. Time is a great crucible and test-tube, and truth has a way of surviving and conquering over the long haul. If the preterist view is not correct, time will reveal it. The thing that bothered the Jews about Gamaliel’s advice was that Christianity was spreading – like the preterist view is today.

We must not write-off everyone who lived before our day as being lost just because they disagreed with us, or didn’t understand things the same way we do. They did the best they could with what they knew. We can build upon their work and go further.

I have a feeling some refuse to look at the preterist view because they are not willing to tolerate difference of opinion regarding their creedal traditions. They have the same attitude about their creeds that the Jews had about their traditions:

And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’ Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. ...thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” (Mark 7:6-13 NASB)

Some want to play God, and bind heavy burdens on others, to decide for their group what they can study and believe, and lord it over their congregation, like the scribes, Pharisees and Judaizers:

“And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” Mt.23:4

“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Acts 15:10

This is exactly what is happening when our traditions are bound as law on others. We must be extremely careful with our creedal beliefs. They are “the precepts of men” and if pushed too far will “set aside” and “invalidate” the Word of God. Both Proverbs (30:5,6) and Revelation warn of the dangers of adding to God’s Word. When we make our creeds binding upon others, it is the same as adding to God’s Word. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day were arrogant and pushy with their opinions. They needed to humble themselves and be tolerant of others, as Jesus said, “It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant.” (Matt. 20:26) Tolerance of others’ opinions is an expression of Biblical love. Without tolerance, there is no true love. Love is one of the weightier (most essential) matters of God’s will. Perhaps Melancthon’s very judicious statement bears repeating here: “In matters of essentials, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.”

What if the issue of creedal value is all reversed? Many have assumed that the closer a writer was to the first century, the better he understood the apostolic faith. That may not be the case. Sometimes being too close to the trees hinders one from seeing the forest. They were so busy running from the persecution that they didn’t take time to exegete the finer points of Calvinism nor eschatology. The prophets longed to understand what they were predicting, but didn’t (1 Pet. 1:10-12). Most of the apostles died before 70 AD, so they were not around afterwards to put the pieces together for the post-70 brethren. In many respects the post-70 saints were not as equipped to grasp the meaning and significance of 70 AD as we are. Hind sight is clearer than foresight. Many later writers are more helpful than some of the earlier ones.

Teachers and students of Christianity today are in a better position to interpret the apostles and prophets than earlier generations, but only so far as we thoroughly understand the religious, cultural, linguistic, political, economic, social, moral and ethical milieu out of which their writings were produced and unto which they related. This reflects significantly on the value of the creeds developed in the second through fifth centuries, and suggests that later creeds may be more refined and possibly more valuable. Who will deny that Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the rest of the reformers understood some things better than any generation before them (including the apostolic fathers of the late first and early second century)? But where is the Reformer today who will say that Calvin and other reformers had it all together so well that no further development is possible? We all build on previous generations’ work. There is still a lot of work to be done. It took over 4,000 years of redemptive history from creation before God brought the Promised One to atone for Adam and Eve’s (and mankind’s) sin. It might take 4,000 years after the first century before we begin to fully grasp what really happened there. We have only just begun. An exciting future stretches out indefinitely ahead.

If the earliest creeds are so adequate, why did the later creeds come into being? There was some perceived value to additional later formulations or they would not have been produced. If the Reformation solved all the problems, why did the Restoration and Reconstruction movements come into being? But, none of these movements can claim they have arrived at a total understanding of all Scripture either. And the preterist view in this generation won’t either. But, the preterist view does point in the direction all future research and interpretation needs to follow.

Attempts to understand eschatology have hit some major roadblocks (i.e. Schweitzer, Bultmann, Bertrand Russell, et al). It is becoming increasingly clear that no major progress in understanding it can be made until it is approached from a preterist perspective. The next quantum leap and paradigm shift in our understanding can only be made using a preterist hermeneutic. Everything else is just a re-hash or rearrangement of unworkable church traditions.

Truth is not decided by majority vote of some council, nor is it determined by the historical trial & error experience of the church. Truth has been revealed. But understanding that truth is not as easy. Understanding requires study and quite often a trial & error method of historical and cultural verification. When the social, political, economic, theological and spiritual consequences of an incorrect understanding beat us over the head, we learn very quickly that something in our understanding is not right. That’s why creeds, tradition and the historical experience and teaching of the church are so valuable. The more we learn about them, the better our chances of seeing just what did and didn’t work. And, the latest study and creeds are more valuable than the early ones (if they took all the lessons of history into account). The later ones can see more clearly because they have learned from the mistakes of the past. Even if the authority of creeds has been over-rated, it is still true to say that their value has been under-rated.

We do not push our beliefs regarding eschatology as a basis for orthodoxy or fellowship. Creeds are not for that purpose. They simply state what understanding of Scripture we have at the present time. They can be used to expedite the on-going attempt to better understand Scripture, so we can put it into practice in a way that makes a positive difference (edification) in the world. We believe the optimistic worldview produced by the preterist approach will accomplish this objective better than any other alternative view of eschatology.

We have reached one of those times in history when making progress in our understanding of the Scriptures will require laying aside some of the limited material in our ancient creeds, especially in those areas of study that have not been closely scrutinized in earlier centuries (i.e. eschatology). Those sections of the creeds that deal with eschatology need revision.

Preterists certainly believe the NT taught a future coming, resurrection, judgment and end. We are not denying the events themselves, just that their fulfillment is still future. The wording of the creeds could be amended to indicate that they are merely reflecting the NT’s original futurist perspective, but not necessarily imposing a futurist approach upon anyone after the first century.

The best way we can improve our relationship to and our use of the creeds is by not giving them any more authority than any other traditions and opinions of men. If we must have an authoritative creed, let it be Christ. His life is the pattern (or creed) we follow. Jesus Himself is TRUTH. Allegiance to Him is the test of orthodoxy and the requirement for fellowship. The more we become like Christ, the more we show we understand truth. Truth rightly understood is not so much doctrinal and theological conformity, but practical and spiritual conformity to the thought, attitude, speech and actions of Christ. Do you want to be orthodox and follow the right creed? Follow Christ as taught sola Scriptura and tota Scriptura!

Articles
IPA Home