|
Do As I Say, Not As I Do. J. E. Gautier Jr.
Westminster Confession of Faith III. All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. (e) Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 19th century: "In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, 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. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s Word. The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute (authority), the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. Any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing." (Vol. I, p.7) Dr. Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, 1939: "The Reformation adopted what the early Church taught respecting the return of Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, and eternal life... It can hardly be said that the Churches of the Reformation did much for the development of eschatology." (p.663) It seems that some folks within Reformed partial preterism are suffering from a case of selective non-conformity. Because their interpretation of particular Scripture passages now contradict the Westminster Confession of Faith, they feel that they are allowed to take exception and still be considered "historically orthodox." Their partial preterism has led them to a position that is no longer in accordance with the WCF and/or the creeds. It’s now acceptable to pick and choose portions which they have deemed in need of correction. All the while, condemning those of a different opinion. What is considered heretical is now arbitrarily determined. The WCF errs where they have decided. (Note: The quotes employed in this article, i.e. Ken Gentry and R.C. Sproul’s, are to define partial preterism; they are not serving to accredit Dr. Gentry or Dr. Sproul with those who are condemning fellow brothers and sisters of the faith.) Ken Gentry, in his fourth point of A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism, stated that he "holds that passages specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as ‘ this generation,’ ‘shortly,’ ‘at hand,’ ‘near,’ and similar wording) are to be applied to A.D. 70, but similar sounding passages may or may not be so applied." WCF Chapter XXXIII Of the Last Judgment III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:(f) so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may ever be prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.(g) The WCF provides Scriptural proof texts for its doctrinal position. Under the section "g" support verses, Revelation 22:20 is listed. "He who testifies to these things says,' Surely I am coming quickly.’" The WCF assigns this verse as a proof text for a yet future-to-us coming of Christ. If this verse is not referring to A.D. 70, and the plain language interpretation of it is wrong, then Christ was certainly misleading those to whom this letter was originally addressed. Dr. Gentry does say that "this generation" and "quickly"should be applied to A.D. 70. Isn't it then befitting for all concerned to have Christ "quickly" coming in "this generation?" For Christ to not mislead, and for "quickly" to represent its natural meaning, Revelation 22:20 must be posited at A.D. 70. By the skin of his teeth, partial preterist Foy E. Wallace Jr., recognized how awkward it would be assigning Revelation 22:20 as a future-to-us Advent of Christ. From his commentary titled, The Book of Revelation: "In the beginning John mentioned that the things to be signified in the apocalypse would shortly occur, and that the Lord Jesus would come in these events which were at hand. At the end of the visions he declared that ‘the things must shortly be done,’ and the Lord said, ‘behold, I come quickly’ - meaning that this coming of the Lord would be concurrent with the events. It is not agreeable with the context to make this last statement of Revelation refer to the Second Coming Of Christ" (p.40). "And the words, surely, I come quickly, were not in reference to the second coming of the Christ; but rather the promise to the churches in tribulation. He had so promised, and that repeatedly, to come in the events ready to occur; and the promise had been repeated to each of the seven churches in various forms. These events were shortly to take place and Jesus would therefore in keeping with his promise come quickly" (p.475). Wallace saw the same dilemma in positing similarly phrased Revelation 2:25, off into the distant future. " ‘But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.’ The application of this verse to the second advent of Christ would mean that in this letter the Lord Jesus Christ deceived the church at Thyatira into believing that his second coming would occur in the lifetime of that church. But it does mean that He would come to them in the events described, and it proves that these events would transpire in that period of time." (p.38) R.C. Sproul, in his book The Last Days According to Jesus, lists Revelation 22:20 as that type of temporal indicator that should be applied to AD 70. Dr. Sproul shows that the Greek word, taxos, "is usually translated either ‘shortly’ or ‘quickly.’ It appears in Revelation 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 12, 20." (p.138)
Dr. Gentry concurs with Sproul at
this point. It should be obvious that the framers had only one "type of coming" in mind when they formulated the WCF. And they interpreted that coming as still future to themselves. Dr. Gentry, Dr. Sproul, and other Reformed partial preterists are forced to be at odds with the WCF at this point. But it doesn't end there. Under section "f" of the WCF Chapter xxxiii .3, Luke 21:27-28 is listed as a yet future-to-us Second Coming proof text. "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near." Isn't Luke 21:25-32 the parallel passage of Matthew 24:29-34 which Dr. Gentry assigns to AD 70? (1999 Ligonier Conference, "The Great Tribulation") Luke 21:27-28 is in the very heart of this text. "And there will be signs in the sun, in the moon, and in the stars; and on the earth distress of nations, with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming upon the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (27) Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (28) Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near. Then He spoke to them a parable: ‘ Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near. Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place." The same coming of the Son of Man that the WCF posits in our future, the partial preterist says is already fulfilled. So, either the WCF is in error, or the partial preterist.
WCF Larger Catechism Answer. Matthew 24:30 is used as a proof text for this Answer. "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Partial preterism says that Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled by A.D. 70. Yet another disagreement. WCF Chapter XXXIII Of the Last Judgment II. the end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not god, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. (e) Under the proof verses provided for this section, Matthew 25:31-46 tops the list. "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ' Come you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’" Matthew 25:31-34 Compare: "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matthew 24:30-31 Isn’t Matthew 16:27-28, which R.C. Sproul posits at AD 70 (1999 Ligonier Conference, "Last Days Madness."), the same coming in power and glory, with His angels and His Kingdom, as Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 24:30? "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 Historic orthodox Christianity has always taught one Coming of the Son of Man. When the Reformers assembled the WCF, did they interpret two different comings; Matthew 24:30 at AD 70 and Matthew 25:31-46 still in the future? No. The Reformers did not "split" the Olivet Discourse, as do most partial preterists. They taught that the one and only future-to-the New Testament writers "coming," had still not occurred. According to the WCF and the creeds, the coming of the Son of Man with power and glory, with His angels, and in His Kingdom, was always one coming, not two. From The Parousia, Dr. James Stuart Russell, 1878: On the so-called "splitting" of our Lord’s Discourse. Matthew xxiv. 35, 36 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." "Although our Lord has defined the limits of the time within which the predicted consummation would take place, yet a certain amount of indefiniteness remains respecting the moment of its arrival. He does not specify the exact date, the ‘hour, or the day,’ or even the month or the year. This does not mean that the whole question of time is left unsettled: it refers merely to the precise date. The consummation was to fall within the term of the existing generation, but the particular hour when the knell of doom should sound was not revealed to man, nor angel, nor (what is stranger still) to the Son of man Himself. It was the secret which the Father kept ‘in His own power.’ There were doubtless sufficient reasons for this reserve. To have specified ‘the day and hour’ - to have said, ‘In the seventh-and thirtieth year, in the sixth month and the eighth day of the month, the city shall be taken and the temple burnt with fire’ - would not only have been inconsistent with the manner of prophecy, but would have taken away one of the strongest inducements to constant watchfulness and prayer - the uncertainty of the precise time." (pp.89-90) "There is no introduction of a new topic at the forty-third verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew: no transition to another catastrophe, or another coming different from those of which He had all along been speaking. There is no hiatus, no break, in the continuity of the discourse; no indication of passing away from the grand event which engrossed the thoughts of the disciples to another in the far distant futurity. It seems incredible that any critical judgment should select Matt. xxiv. 43 as the commencement of a new subject of discourse. There is not transition, but continuation, at ver. 43. Nothing can be more consecutive and concatenated. ‘Watch therefore,’ says our Lord to His disciples in ver. 42, ‘for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.’ ‘Therefore, be ye also ready,’ He says in ver. 44, ‘for insuch an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.’ The suggestion that a new topic, having reference to a totally different event, in a far distant age of time, is introduced here, is altogether arbitrary and groundless." (pp.96-97) Dr. Russell on Matthew 25:31-46, The Sheep and the Goats. And the harmony forged with Matthew 24:30 and Matthew 16:27-28. "This ‘coming of the Son of man’ has already been predicted by our Lord (Matt. xxiv. 30, and parallel passages), and the time expressly defined, being included in the comprehensive declaration, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled’" (Matt. xxiv. 34). "It deserves particular notice that the description of the ‘coming of the Son of man in his glory’ given in this parable tallies in all points with that in Matt. xvi. 27, 28, of which it is expressly affirmed that it would be witnessed by some then present when the prediction was made." (p.103) Dr. Milton Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics, 1898 "The point made emphatic, in the eschatological discourse of Jesus, is that all things contemplated in the apocalyptic symbolism employed to depict his coming and reign would follow ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days’ (Matt. 24:29). That is, the coming of the kingdom of the Son of Man is coincident with the overthrow of Judaism and its temple, and follows immediately in those very days. The kingdom itself is to endure for ages of ages. It is to increase like the stone cut from the mountain, which itself ‘became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.’ ...it is not difficult to see that, when one has it already settled in his mind that the kingdom of Christ is not yet come, that the ‘Parousia’ is an event yet future, and that ‘the end of the age’ is not the close of the pre-Messianic age, but ‘the end of the world,’ such a weight of dogma effectually obliges him to nullify the simple meaning of words as emphatic as Jesus ever spoke." (pp.238-245) The charge of heresy is now made simply because you don’t have the same presupposition that your accuser has. The same creeds and standards that are used to grade the "orthodoxy" of another believer, they themselves deny! Points of their own choosing. It’s now O.K. to not conform with the creeds or the WCF. As long as where you don’t conform, is the same place they don’t. And you conform, where they do. Partial preterism is portraying an illusion of orthodoxy. They apply the title of "orthodox preterist" to themselves. Orthodox with what? The creeds or confessions? History? If the creeds and confessions determine orthodoxy, then partial preterism is well outside of what is Historical Christianity. Show me one, just one, creed or confession that teaches two New Testament comings of Christ! Partial preterism claims to be in accordance with "historical orthodox
Christianity." What determines orthodoxy? The Reformers cried, "Sola Scriptura!" WCF Chapter I Of the Holy Scripture IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (y) X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (z) When confronted by the consistent preterists’ Scripture Alone exegesis, the partial preterist is ultimately forced to retreat to the "opinions of ancient writers," and the "doctrines of men." Though they would deny it, most partial preterists must also disagree with the above statements from the WCF. The end result is not "Sola Scriptura," but the creedal interpretation thereof. The following is taken from Dr. Louis Berkof's, Systematic Theology, 1939. (late President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Calvin Seminary) It is only in the Christian religion that the doctrine of the last things receives greater precision and carries with it the assurance that is divine. Naturally, they who are not content to rest their faith exclusively on the Word of God, but make it contingent on experience and on the deliverances of the Christian consciousness, are at a great disadvantage here. ...They shall have to accept the testimony of God respecting these, or continue to grope in the dark. If they do not wish to build the house of their hope on vague and indeterminate longings, they shall have to turn to the firm ground of the Word of God. p.662 ...it must be said that there has never been a period in the history of the Christian Church, in which eschatology was the center of Christian thought. The other loci of Dogmatics have each had their time of special development, but this cannot be said of eschatology. p.662 FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH CENTURY. In the very first period the Church was perfectly conscious of the separate elements of the Christian hope, as, for instance, that physical death is not yet eternal death, that the souls of the dead live on, that Christ is coming again, that there will be a blessed resurrection of the people of God, that this will be followed by a general judgment, in which eternal doom will be pronounced upon the wicked but the pious will be rewarded with the everlasting glories of heaven. But these elements were simply seen as so many separate parts of the future hope, and were not yet dogmatically construed. pp.662-3 FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE REFORMATION. ...under the influence of Origen and Augustine, anti-chiliastic views became dominant in the Church. But though these were regarded as orthodox, they were not thought through and systematically developed. There was a general belief in a life after death, in the return of the Lord, in the resurrection of the dead, in the final judgment, and in a kingdom of glory, but very little reflection on the manner of these. p.663 FROM THE REFORMATION UP TO THE PRESENT DAY. The thought of the Reformation centered primarily about the idea of the application and appropriation of salvation, and sought to develop eschatology mainly from this point of view. Many of the old Reformed theologians treat it merely as an adjunct to soteriology, dealing with the glorification of believers. Consequently, only a part of eschatology was studied and brought to further development. The Reformation adopted what the early Church taught respecting the return of Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, and eternal life... In its opposition to Rome, it also reflected a good deal on the intermediate state and rejected the various tenets developed by the Roman Catholic Church. It can hardly be said that the Churches of the Reformation did much for the development of eschatology. p.663 In general it may be said that eschatology is even now the least developed of all the loci of dogmatics. Moreover, it was often given a very subordinate place in the systematic treatment of theology. ...Reformed theologians on the whole saw this point very clearly, and therefore discussed the last things in a systematic way. However, they did not always do justice to it as one of the main divisions of dogmatics, but gave it a subordinate place in one of the other loci. Several of them conceived of it merely as dealing with the glorification of the saints or the consummation of the rule of Christ, and introduced it at the conclusion of their discussion of objective and subjective soteriology. The result was that some parts of eschatology received due emphasis, while other parts were all but neglected. In some cases the subject-matter of eschatology was divided among different loci. pp.664-5 The consistent preterist agrees with the creedal writers to the number of "comings" of Christ (one) along with its accompanying events. The creedal writers simply misunderstood the nature of that one coming and were thereby forced to postpone it. One error led to the other. On the other hand, the partial preterist teaches two New Testament comings of Christ; one that is within Scriptural time-frame and nature of fulfillment, and another that is foreign to Scripture. The partial preterist position is merely an attempt to satisfy the time-statements and still maintain the predilection they had prior to "seeing" those time-statements. It’s nothing more than a compromise. But with its denial of the fulfillment of significant eschatological events (i.e. the Second Coming, resurrection, and judgment), it is still the integrity of Christ and His apostles that is compromised. If the partial preterist is convinced that partial preterism is the truth, then the creeds and confessions missed it. Partial preterism is just as out of accord with (if not more so) the creeds and confessions as consistent preterism. The difference is that the consistent preterist admits it, while the partial preterist plays this "within creedal orthodoxy" shell-game. Just as Dr. Berkof said, "there has never been a period in the history of the Christian Church, in which eschatology was the center of Christian thought." I believe that "period" is upon us. "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." Philip Schaff
|
|
All rights reserved.