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

Brief Response To Sandlin and West

Before my response to Gentry’s “Analysis” could be finished, Chalcedon Report (July, 1997, issue #384, edited by Andrew Sandlin) decided to reprint Gentry’s Analysis along with two other articles critical of the full preterist view: “Hymenaeus Resurrected” by Andrew Sandlin, and “The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of Dispensable Eschatology” by Jim West. Most of the concerns raised by Sandlin and West were addressed in my response to Gentry, so I will merely deal with some of the other items unique to their articles here in this Appendix. Sandlin first.

Chalcedon Report, July, 1997, issue #384, pp. 5-8

As far as I can tell, every single one of the issues raised by Sandlin have already been dealt with in my response to Gentry. However, I would like to further clarify a couple of things.

Sandlin stated that his article was primarily addressing the views expressed in Richard and Janice Leonard’s book, The Promise of His Coming. I’m sure they can adequately defend their views without my help, so I will not try. But I would like to point out that I take a different approach to the resurrection issue than they do, so I would recommend not judging the full preterist view solely on the basis of the Leonards’ views. The resurrection position presented in my response to Gentry is offered for your additional consideration. About the only thing that all full preterists agree on regarding the resurrection is that it occurred in AD 70, and that it was a “bodily” resurrection in some sense. There are dozens of other full preterist books in print which need to be consulted for a clearer and deeper understanding of what we are really saying about the resurrection. Most of these can be obtained from Kingdom Publications. The one I particularly recommend is Murray Harris’ From Grave To Glory (even though he is not a preterist).

The most interesting thing in Sandlin’s article was his quote of Loraine Boettner (p. 5). See if you can spot Boettner’s self-contradiction in these words quoted from his book, The Millennium (p. 261):

The Scriptures clearly represent Christ as coming in some manifestations to the people of his own generation and to later generations; and they just as clearly set forth His Coming in glory and judgment at the end of the age....[T]he New Testament does not draw a sharp distinction between the partial, preliminary comings and the final Coming. [emphasis added]

Notice the words I have boldfaced above. Boettner wants to have his cake to look at, and eat it too. Unfortunately he can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Do the Scriptures “clearly” “draw a sharp distinction” between the preliminary comings and the final one, or not? First, he says they do. Then he says they don’t. Which is it? Maybe Sandlin can help us out here. Where do Jesus and the NT writers ever “clearly set forth” and “draw a sharp distinction between” two different parousia’s of Christ separated by thousands of years? I would recommend reading what I said to Gentry about this before replying. This should clear up all the other issues Sandlin raised as well.

I would also like to comment on one of the other articles the July 1997 issue of Chalcedon Report. It pertains to one of the footnotes in Joseph Braswell’s article, “Interpreting Prophecy: The Canonical Principle.” The article contrasts several different hermeneutical models to point out the strengths and benefits of the covenantal hermeneutic as it tracks down the “divine authorial intent” behind a passage. Braswell is not a full preterist, and certainly did not intend to say anything that would encourage full preterists, but the description of his hermeneutical method was pretty close to the approach we reformed full preterists employ in our study of eschatology. Some very interesting hermeneutical insights here. For all its weaknesses, Joseph does point out one of the benefits of the purely “historical method” that mostly concerns itself with the “human authorial intent.” In footnote two (p. 28), Joseph explains the advantage of repeated hermeneutical approaches to a text, each time from a different perspective, and each time building on the ever-growing body of knowledge about the meaning of the text. This illustrates one of the concepts I was trying to get across in my response to Gentry, namely that earlier generations cannot always be trusted to have a correct exegesis of scripture (unless they are inspired). Some passages can only be interpreted after others in the background are clarified first. And that background understanding may not come for generations, centuries or maybe even millenniums. There will be no more new revelation after the canon was closed. But our understanding of that revelation is getting better and better all the time. Each generation builds on the successes of the past, and culls out the failures as well. Every uninspired document is subject to faults in its interpretative material. Only the cumulative hermeneutical efforts of multiple generations can unlock the “divine authorial intent” of some passages. Quite often that is different than what we humans would have naturally postulated. The repeated efforts to interpret a text will eventually pay off. Of course, when they do, it means that some older traditional interpretations will have to be sacrificed. This is not a pleasant experience for those who worship the sacred cows (the creedal traditions). But the progress in our understanding and the development of better interpretations will be worth it. The pearl of great price costs everything we have. Anything else is just a cheap imitation. Only the creedalist, who believes he already understands all he needs to know, will fail to go after that pearl. He has quit trying to reform. He believes the reformation has done its work and there is nothing else left to reform. True reformers never envision such a day. Their watchword is “reformed and always reforming.” Anyway, here’s Braswell’s explanation of the historical method which I thought was interesting:

We must recognize that this [purely historical] method, if employed properly and successfully, is not a case of vicious circularity that continues only to take us back to our original starting point without our gaining any new information. The method involves a dynamic, reflexive process of engagement that allows for ongoing revision and correction through continued “circling” from text to author and back to text, shifting from historical to literary questions at appropriate points in the circle so that the perspective we begin with ... is not the same as the perspective we bring to the text as we “return”... Background and meaning prove mutually illuminating; with each reentry into the text the exegete carries with him the fruit of his previous excursions and can use this newly acquired knowledge as a key to unlock yet more insights and correct previous hypotheses.

This is one of the best descriptions of what happens when Bible students continue to seek to improve their understanding of Scripture. Progress is made. Braswell has eloquently shown that true reformers believe in continual reform and continual progress in our understanding of scripture. This implies that every uninspired, non-canonical interpretation and application of scripture (including the non-Biblical parts of the creeds) is forever subject to an “ongoing revision and correction” process which will continue to “unlock yet more insights and correct previous hypotheses.” It is truly exciting to gain “insights” into some scriptures which have been impenetrable for centuries and millenniums. The full preterist view is a part of the “newly acquired knowledge” which is already unlocking many “more insights” and helping us “correct previous hypotheses.” I suppose Sandlin and West would say that they are the only ones who have a right to use this hermeneutical methodology to come up with any “newly acquired knowledge” and “more insights,” and to “correct previous hypotheses.” According to them, everyone else, especially the “full preterists,” must forever stick with traditional interpretations! My thanks to Joseph Braswell for a great article on hermeneutics showing that progress in our understanding is possible and beneficial.

I welcome a formal inquiry into how my position differs from "the important creeds of the church," and whether those differences are Biblically justified. Where have full preterists denied any of the Biblical material that is in the creeds? The Biblical content cannot be questioned, but as Ken Gentry and other students of the creeds have pointed out, the creeds contain more than just inspired Biblical content. They also contain uninspired "interpretations and applications" of scripture, added in later centuries by well-meaning, uninspired (and possibly mistaken) brethren. To the degree that creeds incorporate human uninspired "interpretations and applications" (Ken Gentry's words), to that same degree they are vulnerable to error and under suspicion. The full preterist view may differ with the time of fulfillment of the Biblical events summarized in the creeds, but it does not deny the Biblical doctrines and events themselves. The timing is a matter of interpretation, not Biblical revelation. One may be completely orthodox with Scripture (and the Biblical material in the creeds), without necessarily agreeing with the time "interpretations and applications" that were added to the creeds by uninspired and fallible men later. If the creeds contain anything else but pure Scripture (and they do), then they cannot be considered as inspired, infallible, or ultimately authoritative for determining whether someone is orthodox with Scripture. If they have any non-Biblical content, they can be mistaken. The question is, are they mistaken in their non-Biblical interpretations and applications? Has our understanding of Scripture developed to the point that we now can see some mistakes that have crept in unnoticed and innocently in earlier generations? Louis Berkhof noted in his book, The History of Christian Doctrines (p. 259), that:

"The doctrine of the last things never stood in the centre of attention, is one of the least developed doctrines, and therefore calls for no elaborate discussion. ... It may be that, as Dr. Orr surmises, we have now reached that point in the history of dogma in which the doctrine of the last things will receive greater attention and be brought to further development."

I don't think it is heretical against Scripture to suggest that we have in fact "reached that point in the history of dogma" when the doctrine of the last things is being "brought to further development." The preterist view (as Sproul admitted in the 1993 symposium) does solve a number of the anomalies that have plagued conservative theologians in our fight against skeptic critics of the Bible. In fact, Schweitzer’s thesis about imminency remains unanswered to this date without invoking the preterist view against it. I have a very high esteem for the ecumenical creeds and the confessions of the reformed faith. I do not believe for a minute that the preterist view is out of harmony with the Biblical content in the creeds, nor with the original intent behind the creeds (to reflect the NT perspective). Their uninspired interpretations about the time of those events was added to the inspired Biblical material in the creeds. If further development of those doctrines reveal a flaw in the historic church's “time interpretations,” then that mistake can be corrected without touching the Biblical content of the creeds, simply because we are only dealing with the uninspired "interpretations" of the time of those events, and not with the Biblical events themselves. The Bible teaches that those events were imminent in the first century. The preterist view takes the Biblical view of imminency more seriously than it takes the later church's view of postponement. Traditionalists and creedalists have not offered a viable solution to this dilemma. Instead they run to the creeds. "The creed says it, I believe it, and that settles it." or “The creeds don’t teach it, so it can’t be true.” When a conflict develops between the creed and Scripture, where should our allegiance rest? (sola scriptura)

Chalcedon Report, July, 1997, issue #384, pp. 17-22

Both Sandlin and West mention Hymenaeus, who taught that the resurrection event was already past when Paul wrote to Timothy at Ephesus (2 Tim. 2:17). Gentry also brought this issue up, and I gave what I believe is a sufficient answer to it there. Other full preterist writers have explained the situation as well. I will not repeat that material here. I will say that when Paul wrote his second letter to Timothy from prison, the resurrection was still future. Hymenaeus was wrong for saying it was past already at that time. But if the resurrection actually occurred at AD 70 within that generation as Paul predicted it would, it would not be incorrect today to say that it is past. Another point that needs to be considered here is that Paul doesn’t use his best argument against Hymenaeus, if in fact Paul was teaching a physical resurrection. If the resurrection was merely supposed to be a resuscitation of physically dead bodies out of the graves, why didn’t Paul just say, “Hey, look around you, Hymenaeus, the graves are still intact. The resurrection hasn’t occurred.” Why didn’t Paul use that argument. It would have been a killer. And if a physical resuscitation was Hymenaeus’ concept of the resurrection, he would never have come up with the idea that the resurrection had already occurred with such an obvious refutation readily at hand. There is a lot more going on here than first meets the eye. How in the world could anyone believe the resurrection was past already if their only concept of it was purely physical resuscitation? What kind of resurrection was Hymenaeus thinking about? Notice Paul doesn’t challenge his concept of the nature of the resurrection, but rather his timing of it. What was at stake if the resurrection had indeed already occurred? I encourage you to go back and read what I said in my response to Gentry in the last section of my comments under point seven. This whole situation with Hymenaeus bears much more study than Sandlin and West have given it. It is really full preterist turf in the debate about the AD 70 resurrection.

West asserts that we believe the souls of men become “disembodied spirits” at death and remain so “forever.” This is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of our view. I talked to Jim West on the phone a couple of years ago and explained my view to him, but evidently he chose not to remember it. As one can easily see from my use of Murray Harris’ book in my response to Gentry, I absolutely do not believe what West asserts here. Notice he doesn’t quote any of the full preterist books to back up this strawman argument. He asserts that full preterists do not include the whole man (body and soul) in the resurrection event, and that our concept of redemption does not include “our bodies.” More mistaken misrepresentations. Murray Harris clears this up.

West also implies that full preterist are “Platonists” and have a “pathetic Greek view of the body” and are heavily influenced by “Gnostic thinking.” All this is built on his assumption that we do not believe in a “bodily” resurrection at AD 70. He should rather ask, “If you guys believe in a bodily resurrection at AD 70, what is the nature of that resurrection body, and why didn’t physical bodies reappear out of the graves at AD 70?” Now that is an excellent question, and one which we addressed at length in the response to Gentry.

On page 18, under the heading “Consistency,” West surprisingly admits that “scripture does teach that the Second Coming and the resurrection of the body are simultaneous events (1 Cor. 15:23).” The Greek word for “coming” here in this text is parousia. All one needs to do to see the tremendous “inconsistency” West has placed himself in here, is to study the other places where the word “parousia” is used. Again, we did this in the Gentry response, so we will not repeat it here. West has just gambled away the farm by admitting that the resurrection had to occur in connection with Christ’s parousia (a definite AD 70 event). West stands defenseless, unless he is willing to adopt the liberal and inconsistent idea that Christ and the NT writers spoke of two totally different parousia’s separated by thousands of years using exactly the same (not just similar) language. The idea of two different parousia’s was not dreamed up until late in the second century.

Another blind assertion and misrepresentation of West in his section on Matthew 24 was when he said, “Certainly Tyre and Sidon and Sodom were not judged in AD 70.” His position is based on the assumption that this event has to occur in the visible realm. And he follows the untenable notion of Marcellus Kik that Matthew 24 is divided into two separate sections, the first dealing with the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the second dealing with the end of the physical world at the end time. There are many partial preterists in the reformed and reconstructionist camps who would debate that with him. There is a chart (Appendix I) at the end of our response to Gentry (just before this Appendix II) which clearly illustrates the fallacy of dividing the Matthew 24 into two different events. And, we dealt with this idea in our response to Gentry under point number ten (“A 40-Year Millennium”). If the whole chapter of Matthew 24 and its associated context (Matt. 23 and 25) is talking about the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, then West’s argumentation here in this section vaporizes. West’s other comments in the Matthew 24 section about our resurrection views are also misrepresentations. See my discussion in Gentry to clear that up.

His “Misunderstanding Paul” is another classic case of building a strawman argument and accusing us of positions we do not take. All his great logic and carefully constructed syllogisms is wasted on misrepresentations. All I have to do to refute his arguments is simply say I don’t believe what he says I do. This section would more appropriately be titled, “Misunderstanding Preterists.”

West’s sections entitled, “What Is A Resurrection” and “1 Corinthians 15” are mainly concerned with attacking Richard and Janice Leonard’s view of the AD 70 resurrection which I also disagree with. Since West doesn’t really deal with my position on the resurrection in those sections, I will bypass them. After West has read my response to Gentry, where I present my views, I would be delighted to interact with him on the AD 70 resurrection.

After reading West’s closing section, “Paul’s Assessment of Hymenaen Theology,” I’m glad we don’t live back in the days of the inquisition and the crusades. I would probably be singing praises in the heavenly realm in my new spiritual, immortal body by now, sitting next to Chilton, Bahnsen and Van Til. I doubt that I would want my physical body back under those circumstances, because it probably would have been tortured and disfigured beyond recognition by ruthless, heartless, mean-spirited, anti-Christian “Diotrephesians” who will “hack and stack” anyone who differs with their uninspired and fallible creedal traditions. Jesus labeled the Pharisees as hypocrites, blind guides and brood of vipers. Paul didn’t hesitate properly labeling those of the circumcision party as mutilators or butchers, as well as some other folks like Diotrephes. He even called some false teachers at Ephesus “wolves.” If one can prove by properly exegeted inspired Scripture that someone else’s position is wrong, then an appropriately descriptive label is well-served. But when incorrect and inappropriate labels are applied to those who merely differ with uninspired interpretations and applications in the uninspired creeds, then it is illegitimate. Sandlin and West have gone too far and too fast. They have called for unnecessarily radical actions against folks who have not been proven guilty of heresy by Biblical standards. In fact, they have not conducted any real investigations or trials of full preterists yet. It has been a kangaroo court all the way. I really think Sandlin and West are afraid to let the “full preterist” view be heard in an unbiased investigation. As long as their view is the only one heard, the decision is obvious. It is not even American (much less Christian) to condemn a person without letting him face his accusers and defend himself against the charges. What happened to the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty? If Sandlin and West really want to be Biblically correct in their treatment of this issue, they need to call for an investigation of it, instead of pompously proclaiming their own opinions about it as the absolute final word. They have already decided the verdict and delivered the sentence, without due process. Even the American judicial system, as corrupt as it is, offers better than this. Apostle Paul had to appeal to the Roman court system to escape the cruel and unusual “justice” his Jewish “brethren” were trying to give him. It was a shame to the Jewish system that he had to do that. And it is a shame to Sandlin and West for single-handedly pushing their weight around and trying to impose radical condemnations and punishments without the duly appointed leaders of the church conducting a complete and unbiased investigation to decide the verdict and determine the course of action first. They have acted presumptuously without due process being followed. It is not their place to make that decision, nor enforce those punishments prematurely. They have stepped out of bounds Biblically and ecclesiastically. I think the best advice that could be given to Sandlin and West at this point is the advice Gamaliel gave the Sanhedrin concerning the apostles:

But a certain Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody; and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. And he was slain; and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census, and drew away some people after him, he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. And so in the present case, I say to you, 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.” And they took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them to speak no more in the name of Jesus, and then released them. So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Acts 5:34-42)

God is not going to allow the full preterist view to be overthrown if it is orthodox with His Word. What is interesting, is that our view is growing and thriving, even in the midst of constant opposition. That is the reason why people like Sandlin and West are alarmed. If it was shrinking and fizzling, they would ignore it. It would be no threat to them. We have gained nothing materialistically from it. But we have seen Biblical truth shining out of Scripture to enlighten our understanding in ways we never dreamed possible. We have found some pearls of great value, and we are willing to give up everything to have them. We would be delighted to participate in an unbiased, serious and thorough investigation of the Full Preterist view. Truth has nothing to fear from an open investigation. But if it is only more kangaroo courts and Diotrophesian pronouncements that are forthcoming, then we are also happy to “suffer shame” to uphold the integrity of Christ’s inspired imminency predictions, rather than pledge allegiance to the uninspired and fallible creeds and their pompous defenders. “We must obey God rather than men.” We appeal to Scripture for our decisions on orthodoxy, not the creeds. We do not wish to participate in the creedalists’ invalidation of the inspired Word of God by their uninspired tradition. Do what you wish. Your puny threats and smug arrogance will not move us nor change Biblical truth. We do not fear those who can only make it difficult for us in the physical realm. We fear only Him who can make it eternally torturous for our souls. Gamaliel had wise advice, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men.” If your creedal “doxy” (doctrine) is not “ortho” (straight in line) with Scripture, “you may even be found fighting against God.” There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof is the way of death. Let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall.