Archive for Thomas Ice
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “Does Believing And Espousing The Pre-Trib Rapture Create Unprepared Christians Doomed To Hell?”
I recently got through reading another brand new 168-page book by Fred DeRuvo, a Christian author, teacher, and lecturer, who has written a variety of excellent materials in support of Dispensationalism. This guy is really amazing. After closing the book, I am left with the impression that by the time I am finished writing this review, he will have written and published at least three or four more books which definitively slam some particular argument levied against Dispensational theology.
In his latest work, DeRuvo takes up a touchy subject, and handles it with a great deal of Christian forbearance, not to mention rhetorical restraint in matters which easily send most people climbing the walls in anger. DeRuvo’s purpose is to showcase the unfair and uncharitable allegations of a large group of eschatological die-harders who claim that belief in a Pre-Tribulational rapture is inherently evil and will send people to hell.
When I first heard these arguments awhile back, I was surprised that anyone would come to such a conclusion. However, from reading DeRuvo’s book it appears that such opinions are represented by a large majority of those who fall into the “post trib” perspective. DeRuvo mentions many of them by name, and proceeds to document some of their crazy insinuations, even giving the substance of personal emails which were sent to him by people like Tim Warner and C.H. Fisher.
DeRuvo handles their allegations one by one, in his typical methodical manner. He shows what the real trouble with these people is, namely that they are overly dogmatic, and too often unwilling (or unable) to document the assertions they make. Not only that, but they make no attempt to keep their rhetoric within the bounds of Christian courtesy. Rather, they are better known for spitting vitriol at whoever disagrees with them.
The belief that a “Pre-Trib” rapture produces lazy and spiritually unprepared Christians is aptly answered by Fred when he writes:
“To claim that believing and espousing the Pre-Trib rapture creates lazy, spiritually weak, unprepared Christians, is like saying that by teaching that I could die today, I am apt to become lazy, immature, carnal, and worldly! It is the same thing, folks! I know there is a chance that I will leave this earth and be taken into His Presence before this day is over, whether by death, or by Rapture, that will (or should), give me a greater sense of what is and what is not important! It is as simple as that, and there is NO way to deny it.” (pg. 68).
The author then exposes one of the real reasons why these folks are so often against Pre-Tribulational teachings. It it because they deny the Protestant doctrine of “Eternal Security.” Fred quotes a large section from Tim Warner’s website, demonstrating that Warner himself (as so many like him) reject the “Eternal Security of the believer,” and actually teach a Romanistic concept of grace plus works. This seems to form the foundation of their apologetic attitude toward Dispensationalism in general.
DeRuvo also responds to their treatment – or should we say, mistreatment? — of the “early church fathers,” as they dismiss any evidence which validates a pre-tribulational understanding, while dogmatically fixating on statements which they use to bolster post-tribulationism. DeRuvo finds that in many instances, their ears are really closed to reasonable and constructive dialogue. Having headed out with their torches and pack-staves, no one can turn them aside.
What makes such behavior even worse, however, are the unfair insinuations and representations of people like Dave MacPherson, who actually had the nerve to call Thomas Ice’s academic validity in question. Although facts relating to Tyndale Seminary were produced in Ice’s favor (and DeRuvo is a graduate of Tyndale, who can attest to the documentary evidence given in his book), Ice revealed to the author that MacPherson never apologized to him for making crooked implications and misrepresentations regarding his seminary degree.
All in all, DeRuvo presents a very informative, well-balanced defense of Dispensational teaching. And he does so in a contained and reflective manner. He wraps up the book by stating that while it is easy for Christians to get carried away by bickering about non-essentials, it is not always easy to keep one’s focus on glorifying God and maintaining Christian unity regarding the essential doctrines of our faith. After reading this work, I am rather convinced than otherwise that the adversaries and opponents of Dispensationalism are not quite in tune with the mind of Christ.
For those interested in this book, copies presently may be obtained at Fred DeRuvo’s website. When Amazon makes this available, I will include a page-link. Incidentally, I am now in process of reviewing two more of Fred DeRuvo’s recent works, and am aware that another one is on its way! The author of this blog extends a cordial thanks to DeRuvo for making such books available to the Christian public. God is definitely using him, and I pray that special blessings will be shed on him and his ministry.
Dr. Thomas Ice — The Anti-Semitism of James B. Jordan
The conviction that modern Jews are fraudulent has been clearly expressed by Presbyterian replacement theologian James B. Jordan. “With the passing away of the Old Covenant, there is no longer any such a thing as a Jew in the Biblical sense,” declares Jordan. I wonder, “Is there any other sense in which one could be a Jew except for the biblical sense?” “Unless by ‘True Jews’ we mean Christians. There is no covenant, and therefore there is no nation, no ‘race.’”
Nowhere does the New Testament call Gentile Christians “True Jews,” “Jews,” “Israel” or any such term. New Testament believers are called the seed of Abraham because he was the father of those who believe. Abraham was the only Gentile in the history of the world who became a Jew or Israelite since the Jewish race descended from him, Isaac and Jacob. Thus, all Christian believers in the current church age, whether Jew or Gentile are offspring from the spiritual seed of Abraham (Rom. 4:1–5; Gal. 3:6–7, 14, 16–18). Abraham is both the father of physical Israel known as the Jews and father of spiritual descendants, that is, everyone who believes in Jesus as the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile (Gen. 15:6).
Jordan makes one of the most outlandish statements possible on this topic when he declares: “It is entirely possible that there is not one drop of Abraham’s blood in any modern Jew.” One might think that only a radical Islamic terrorist would publicly write such things, but Jordan is an Evangelical Christian. He does not stop with the preceding comment, he continues with the following pontification:
“Modern Jews are a separate nation of people with a self-identity, spread out among many other nations. The closest analogy to them are the Gypsies. The only difference between Modern Jews and Gypsies is that the Modern Jews claim to have a relation to the Bible Jews, a claim I maintain is false. . . . Modern Jews think of themselves as Jews, but they are not Jews. They are counterfeits of Biblical Jews. I say this not to disparage them, but to be accurate.”
Jordan’s “scholarship” leads him to believe that today’s Jews (he even coins a special term for the Jews of today—”modern Jews“) are fraudulent, merely posing as Jews. History would be totally different if Hitler had thought this way, or if the Muslims of today would come to learn of Jordan’s discovery. “Modern Jews are people who choose to think of themselves as descendants of Israel,” insists Jordan.
Even though the Jews surely have intermarried with Gentiles that does not invalidate their Jewishness any more than intermarriage that was practiced in the Old Testament did not invalidate their Jewishness. Jesus Himself had a number of Gentiles within His genealogical line, yet He was certainly Jewish. In the time of the New Testament these people were still known as Jews—the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus referred to the residents of Israel in His day as Jews. When reading the New Testament, there does not appear to be a problem identifying who the Jews were Christ’s day. The notion that Jews cannot have the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob flowing through their veins is purely one manufactured by those with an anti-Semitic bias.
Since there was about a two thousand year period from the call of Abraham until the time of Christ and Jesus referred to the residents of Israel as Jews, then we have a precedent to do so today. It has been about another two thousand years since the time of Christ until our present day. If the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were considered Jews after two thousand years by Jesus in His day, then why should they not be considered descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob today, after another two thousand years have passed? In fact, the last two thousand years have seen some Gentile intermarriage, but for the most part, the nations have shut up the Jewish people into their own ghettos and not allowed them to intermingle with Gentiles. Even though an unintended result by perpetrators, anti-Semitism has helped to keep the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob flowing through the veins of modern Jewry.
Read article at: http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=392
Review Of “The End Times Controversy” (Chapter 2)
This second chapter of “The End Times Controversy,” written by Dr. Thomas Ice, appears to be a sequel to the author’s article “What Is Preterism?” (chapter 1). The title of Chapter 2 is “The History of Preterism.” After having defined the parameters of Preterist theology, Dr. Ice goes on to give a history of the school of interpretation to which Preterism belongs. Here he makes a bold use of the creedo-historical argument, in an attempt to show that Preterist theology is a recent development.
“It is strange that there is not one shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these prophecies to have been fulfilled when Preterists say they were. You would think that if a large body of Bible prophecy were meant to relate to a specific generation, as Preterists contend, then the Holy Spirit would have moved in such a way so that first-century believers would have reached such an understanding” (pg. 37).
As Dr. Ice suggests, this first-century silence is a major problem for preterism, and one “which has thus far proved insurmountable.” While I agree with Dr. Ice’s assessment, in all fairness to Preterists I must say that the creedo-historical argument by itself proves nothing. It does not invalidate Preterism, for the center of authority is not church history, but the Scriptures! In turn, I would say the interpretive issue hinges on HOW the Scriptures are read. If the church had obeyed Paul’s precept to “rightly divide the Word of Truth” (2 Tim. 2: 15), and held fast to a consistent literal hermeneutic, then the differences in doctrine among Christians would be far less marked than they are today. It is the adoption of a mystical/allegorical hermeneutic to which we owe the vast number of conflicting interpretive schemes of Bible prophecy.
Since, as Dr. Ice points out, Preterists base their past-fulfillment model on the contemporary expectation of the audience to which the prophecies were first addressed, the issue is not a historical one, so much as a hermeneutical one. It is even a canonical one. However, Dr. Ice does well in rummaging the annals of ecclesiastical history to find some trace of Preterists understanding in the early church.
Ice criticizes Dr. Kenneth Gentry for attempting to show a “nascent preterism in antiquity,” on the strength of two or three isolated sources. The desire to legitimize Preterism by showing some historical conformity, shows a weakness in Biblical support for their view. While Preterists sometimes boldly claim that their theology is the “historic faith of the church,” Dr. Ice shows that the system, even in its mildest forms, was virtually non-existent until the Middle Ages. And even then, the system never got off the ground until the Reformation-era.
Dr. Ice, quoting Henry Alford, claims that the Jesuit Alcazar was the first to propose a Preterist scheme with anything like systematic completeness. He sees Alcazar’s Preterism as having bleeded into Protestantism through the writings of Hugo Grotius, the liberal Dutch Arminian, and Henry Hammond, the father of English Biblical criticism. Dr. Ice observes that when Preterism was first being presented as a viable interpretive scheme, it gained but few adherents. He points out, that John Lightfoot, the Protestant commentator and Rabbinical scholar, while Preteristic in his views, was a historicist when it came to interpreting the Book of Revelation. Thus, even during the Reformation and post-Reformation times, the modern brand of Preterism (denominated by Ice as “Moderate Preterism“) was still in embryo.
Dr. Ice attributes the main influx of Preterist theology in recent times, and especially that form of Preterism which is sometimes called “Modern Preterism,” to the German rationalistic thinkers – scholars like Ewald, Lucke, and De Wette — who adopted Preterist theology as a means to dismiss away the supernatural elements of predictive prophecy. However, Ice contends that even the German rationalists held to a milder form of Apocalyptic interpretation than is espoused by the modern class of Preterist scholars.
According to Dr. Ice’s research, these extreme forms of Moderate Preterism took their rise from a school of German skeptics represented by such men as Firmin Abauzit, Johann Gottfried Herder, and Johann Eichhorn. Ice remarks:
“Preterists in our own day may be pleased about the historical evidence for the spread of Preterism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe. However, they cannot be happy that the foundational support for this growth in Preterism was based upon German rationalism and unbelief” (pg. 55).
Concerning the development of Preterism in the nineteenth century, Ice partly credits Samuel Lee for the spread of Preterism in England, and Moses Stuart for attempting to popularize the view in the U.S.
It should be mentioned here, that a large chunk of historical evidence concerning the growth of American Preterism was not available when Ice wrote his paper. Todd Dennis, curator of the Preterist Archive, has been able to trace the rise of “Full Preterism” to American Universalism which flourished during the first half of the 19th century. It is my opinion that this evidence “bridges” the gap between the development of more-or-less radical forms of Moderate Preterism and what is now called, in theological parlance, Hyper-Preterism.
Dr. Ice certifies that most of the impetus of today’s Preterism is fueled by the Reconstructionist movement. He cites Greg L. Bahnsen as one whose teaching influenced Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and James Jordan to adopt a Preterist scheme. Although Dr. Ice gives a brief nod to Max King, the “Full Preterist” teacher from Warren, Ohio, it is clear that he is concerned with Preterism in its more academic manifestations.
In closing this article, Ice makes a pointed observation regarding hermeneutics. He writes:
“I believe that the spirit of our postmodern times, shaped by a dominant mysticism, has led some individuals to become more open to a less literal hermeneutic. This, in turn, has led some exegetical minds to see the supposed shadow of the Biblical text instead of the letter, or what is actually written. Today’s hermeneutical atmosphere is such that interpretive schemes such as preterism are made to seem feasible, when in the past the were dismissed as too farfetched. The zeitgeist of our day nudges the mind toward the allegorical and not the literal, the shadow instead of the clear, and the mystical rather than the physical” (pg. 65).
It occurs to me that this trend may be one of the primary reasons for the rise of Preterism in recent decades. Our society is certainly one in which popular culture is allowed to set definitions, while absolute values are jettisoned as being outmoded and effete. After reading Dr. Ice’s study I am more convinced than ever that Dispensationalism gives the Scriptural presentation of prophecy and eschatology. Of course, Dispensationalism is not, strictly speaking, the “historical faith of the church.” But the question is not whether it is “historical.” The question should be: Is it Biblical? As stated above, the issue between Preterism and Futurism is a hermeneutical one. And Dr. Ice addresses these concerns in his next study.
Review Of “The End Times Controversy” (Chapter 1)
The first chapter of “The End Times Controversy” is entitled “What Is Preterism?“ Its author is Dr. Thomas Ice, executive director of the Pre-Trib Research Center, and writer of many books and study materials written from the Dispensational perspective. Several other articles in this book are also written by him.
Chapter 1 serves as a basic outline of what Preterism is, and what are some of its distinctive teachings. Ice begins by giving a broad overview of the various eschatological viewpoints, which include Preterism, Futurism, Historicism, and Idealism. He remarks that Preterism is sometimes confused with Historicism, the two systems being similar in approach, and looking for the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in the events of history. The two schools see many details of the Apocalyptic narrative as having been fulfilled.
After giving an outline of the different views, and their relation to the eschatological debate, Dr. Ice shifts his focus on Preterism, breaking the movement into three groups, which he denominates as ”Mild Preterism,” “Moderate Preterism,” and “Extreme Preterism.” The author states that he is not aware of anyone on the contemporary scene who espouses Mild Preterism — even though this is, historically speaking, the most common form of Preterist doctrine. This means that modern-day Preterists fall into two groups: Moderate Preterism and Extreme Preterism.
Ice does not focus on the controversy between Moderate and Extreme Preterism, which is something that belongs mainly within the Reformed community. He does, however, turn his attention on Preterism as it relates to Dispensational theology. And he states at the outset that the book will be interacting primarily with the doctrines of Partial Preterism.
“In this book, our focus will be upon refuting partial preterism. If partial preterism is deemed untenable, then obviously the more extreme form will not be viable as well. What’s more, we believe that when one ventures into extreme or full preterism, then he has moved away from orthodoxy into false teaching. Because full preterism believes that Christ’s only coming (i.e. the second coming) occurred in A.D. 70, and because the translation and resurrection of believers are clearly connected with that event in Scripture (1 Cor. 15: 1; 1 Thess. 4: 13-17), then that means full preterism is heretical.” (pg. 24).
Ice then proceeds to demonstrate some of the major implications of Preterist theology on end-time prophecy, by citing comments mainly culled from David Chilton’s books. Chilton is a good representative of what may be called “Modern Preterism,” his writings having had great impact on the movement.
The author next points out that many Preterists (such as R.C. Sproul) feel that they are “helping to save Christianity from liberal skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer, by adopting a Preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy.” Since a chief bone of contention with the skeptics is that Jesus did not return during the time-frame he predicted, Sproul and others have suggested Preterism as a viable solution. They say that Christ DID return, but that His coming was fulfilled in a non-literal manner.
Regarding this approach, however, Dr. Ice writes:
“…When it comes to the Bible, we cannot fight liberalism with liberalism. Dr. Sproul believes that he is defending the integrity of Scripture by adopting the preterist viewpoint. However, in reality, I believe he is adopting a naturalistic interpretation that too many liberals feel at home with. While Dr. Sproul sees Matthew 24 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the first century, liberal preterists join him in giving a naturalistic explanation, though they do so from a different framework. Ultimately, they both deny that our Lord prophesied a supernatural, bodily, visible return of Christ in fulfillment of Matthew 24.” (pg. 27).
By “liberal preterists,” Ice ostensibly refers to the German critical school represented by such men as Eichhorn, De Wette, and Delitzsch. These German critics often espoused Preterism as a means to avoid the supernatural elements of predictive prophecy. Although Sproul can hardly be classed with this group, Ice’s observation that his preterism is really another form of the same liberalism, is doubtless correct.
Ice then moves on to cover the Preterist view regarding Christ’s Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24/Mark 13). Selecting the significant words and phrases from that discourse, he adds running commentaries by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, which serve to give an overall view of how Preterists deal with prophetic texts. This is the most interesting section of the chapter, as it helps to exemplify the liberal element inherent in Preterist interpretation.
One example of Dr. Gentry’s modus operandi may be seen in Matthew 24: 29, where Christ says: “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give its light, and the stars shall fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”
Gentry writes:
“How then should we understand verse 29? Rather than interpreting it literally, we must interpret it covenantally!… By the very requirement of the context, this passage speaks of the collapse of political Israel in A.D. 70… When a national government collapses in war and upheaval, it is often portrayed as a cosmic catastrophe – an undoing of creation… Consequently, we may see how easy it is to apply Matthew 24: 29 to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” (pg. 32).
I might argue that the author’s view involves a mis-application of eschatological terminology. But Ice’s selection of Gentry’s quotations is sufficient to demonstrate how Preterists mishandle the Word of God. The error is not confined to Gentry, but is common to any teaching which seeks to make Christ’s parousia a past event.
Before wrapping up the article, Dr. Ice briefly discusses the Preterist views of the Book of Revelation. He observes that Preterists base their idea of first-century fulfillment on what are called “timing texts.” These include words and phrases such as: “The time is near;” “I am coming quickly,” and “things which must shortly take place.”
Since I myself hold to a grammatical/historical reading of these texts, I will refrain from commenting on the received mode of interpretation, until I get to chapter 4, in which Dr. Ice deals with these Preterist time indicators. I will say, though, that Preterists make a mistake in falsely applying an “inerrantist” principle to many passages which are conditional in nature.
In closing, Dr. Ice makes an observation with which I entirely agree. He writes:
“The timing of a passage is determined by taking into account all factors in a given passage.” (pg. 34).
Yes, it seems that is what Preterists have missed. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is to be approached according to consistent, orderly hermeneutical principles. To take the time-texts literally, and yet to spiritualize passages which indicate how a prophecy will be fulfilled, displays a logical bias which can never lead one to the attainment of objective truth.
To sum it up, then, I think that Dr. Ice does an excellent job in bringing to light the main elements involved in a Preterist interpretation of Scripture. It is my wish that readers purchase this book (if they haven’t already), in order to gain a better understanding of the issues at stake in the ongoing eschatological battle.
Dr. Thomas Ice– “Preterists Are Operational Futurists”
“If Preterism is true,” says Gary North, “then most of the prophesied negative sanctions in history are over.” ‘Negative sanctions,’ in North’s vocabulary, means apostasy. While Preterists say apostasy is behind us, futurists say apostasy lies ahead, with the church age becoming increasingly apostate, culminating with “The Great Apostasy” during the Tribulation. Chilton says, “The Great Apostasy happened in the first century. We therefore have no Biblical warrant to expect increasing apostasy as history progresses; instead, we should expect the increasing Christianization of the world.”
In reality, the evidence around us points to increasing apostasy, not decreasing. Doctrinal error is as prevalent as it has ever been. It is clear, then, that the Preterist interpretation of New Testament prophecy is far removed from what the Bible teaches, because it is impossible to apply the implications of their teachings in our current age. In fact, given the condition of this world, preterists have to function as futurists. They have to act as though Satan is not bound, and as if apostasy is still a serious problem within the church. They are operational futurists.
Full Preterism: A Building On Fire
Within just two years, I have witnessed a spectacle truly amazing. A theology which was formerly one of the great wonders of the internet world has caught fire, and is now burning to cinders. I am speaking of Hyper-Preterism, of course – the belief that the second advent, resurrection, and final judgment occured in A.D. 70. All those who have access to the facts will bear me witness, that wherever one looks, the doctrines espoused by Hyper-Preterists are going “up in smoke.”
When did this conflagration start? It began in 2006, when Todd Dennis, curator of Preterist Archive.com, announced his rejection of the Hyper-Preterist position. Almost immmediately the solidarity of the movement showed signs of weakening. A furious wave of attack was launched against Todd and others who began defecting from the Hyper-Preterist scene.
Previous to this time, Hyper-Preterism was a flourishing movement. It is no overstatement to say that the growth of Hyper-Preterism among former evangelicals indirectly triggered the publication of such epoch-marking books as “The End Times Controversy” (edited by Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice).
Shortly after Todd left Hyper-Preterism, a blog named Preterist Heresy came along, the purpose of which was to archive quotes from Hyper-Preterist leaders, and showcase the hypocrisy and inconsistency within the movement. Despite its downplay by many, this blog made a major dent in the Hyper-Preterist community, severely compromising its leaders and causing them to be more careful about statements made on public forums.
In 2008, Preterist Blog, another major site, was launched by Dee Dee Warren and Roderick Edwards. This site has been prominent in pointing out the errors of Hyper-Preterist theology, as well as the behavioral trends evinced by leaders of the “conservative” faction. The efforts of Dee Dee and Roderick may be directly responsible for the recent “locking down” of one of the most vocal trumpets of the Hyper-Preterist movement.
To show how far the Hyper-Preterist movement has deteriorated since 2006, one only need see how far the conservative voices have compromised their doctrinal standards, or lapsed into silence. As the more liberal adherents speak up, the conservatives are driven into their private corners, where their voices are hardly even heard.
Kurt Simmons, one of the conservative proponents of Hyper-Preterism, learned this the hard way. In 2007 his “Eschatology Conference” seemed like it would become the next great beacon of the Hyper-Preterist community. In 2008 the same conference was seen overrun by liberals and “Covenant Creation” folks. In 2009… well, there WAS no 2009, for Simmons never repeated the experiment!
Over the past couple years, the conservatives have found themselves up against an increasing wall of liberalism. Unless these conservatives change their party-lines, or develop horns and hooves, they risk falling into extinction — a necessary corollary of the evolutionary principle.
Really, who ever hears of people like Ed Stevens and Walt Hibbard anymore? The fact is, they who were on the bottom floor of the penthouse have already been consumed in the flames of progressive Preterism. Their tale is a venerable one (to them), but one whose final chapter was written long ago. With this in mind, who would dare say that Hyper-Preterism (at least as it was known for so many years) has any kind of future?
Regardless of the grim statistics, however, a new legion of Hyper-Preterist heroes has come along in recent months in an attempt to rejuvenate the lifeblood of the moribund community.
Bryan Lewis, a rabid proponent of Hyper-Pret theology, recently started a “church” (with Hermie Watford and “Dennis from TN“) saying that the “time is ripe for Christianity to embrace the truths of covenant eschatology.” Last time we checked he was doing radio programs.
Kelly Nelson Birks, an old speaker who wangs his academic credentials around to make the H.P. heresy seem more respectable, has been on the radio promoting Hyper-Preterism as well. He is also responsible for organizing the recent ”Omaha Preterist Conference,” at which a disturbed individual stood up and publicly cursed the movement.
Dave Green, leader of the quasi-conservative Hyper-Calvinist faction, now poses as ringleader of a group which purports to have a written “answer” to Keith Mathison’s book, “When Shall These Things Be?“
But Larry Siegle, a once popular speaker at Hyper-Preterist conferences, has grown increasingly reticent, and was recently reported to have been studying the “End Times Controversy,” edited by Tim Lahaye and Thomas Ice. This encouraging move may be a surface indication that Hyper-Preterist theology is being recognized as potentially erroneous.
However one chooses to look at the facts, the prevailing trends speak clearly. No matter where one looks, the conflagration is rising higher, and there is no end in sight. Hyper-Preterism is being consumed “in toto.” As the battle for theological supremacy among its members becomes more and more conspicuous, we can only hope that those seeking refuge on the rooftop will realize that their hopes are futile, and jump to the safety offered them below.
The Unbelief of Preterism
As a follow-up to my article, The Infidelity of Preterism, I thought it well to further explore the kind of rationalism and unbelief on which Preterist theology bases its claims. While systematic Preterism has little historical support, there are a number of writings documented throughout church history that contain key concepts espoused by Preterism. One of these concepts is that our Lord’s own description of His “coming in clouds with power and great glory” is purely symbolic in nature. Preterists hold that such language doesn’t describe a physical reality, but points to a hypothetical and providential coming, which was fulfilled in A.D. 70.
As I wrote in my last article, much of Preterist theorizing arises from the a priori notion that there must be a “perfectly logical explanation” for what is commonly viewed as supernatural. That’s just the problem, though. Preterism stands in the the wisdom of men, and not the power of God. In their effort to be “logical,” they overthrow anything that seems out of line with the established laws of the natural world. As a result, Scripture-teachings are made to accord with their views.
Of course, no reverent student of Scripture would agree to such a cold analysis as Preterists would bring to its pages. And so, the business of the Preterists is to attack Biblical inspiration, or at least discredit its authority. And herein is manifested the unbelief of Preterism.
Eusebius of Caesarea (otherwise known as Pamphili), was one of the earliest teachers to espouse a Preterist view. In his writings, he professes to have seen the coming of the kingdom in his own day, in the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. To Eusebius, the restoration of the Christian churches under the new emperor was the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the “dry bones“ coming to life. He writes: Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: ‘Bone to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage.” (Ecclesiastical History, X. iii. 1-2).
Because Eusebius did not believe in the inspired literality of the Scriptures, it was easy for him to take such a prophecy as Ezekiel’s and force it into a fourth century context. Similar chicanery is seen all throughout his writings. Moreover, due to the Chiliastic teachings of the Apocalypse, Eusebius is said to have denied its apostolic authorship, inventing an imaginary “John the Elder,” whom he professed to have written the book.
That is just one early sample of the rationalism and unbelief by which Preterism operates. Now fast-forward to the 17th century. Another example of Preterist unbelief is witnessed in the writings of John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Protestant divine. Although some would paint him a reverent student of Scripture, a careful study of his works reveals a thinly-disguised unbelief in the supernatural.
Among his many questionable views, Lightfoot believed that the “speaking in unknown tongues” alluded to by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, was nothing miraculous or extraordinary, but mere utterance in the Hebrew language. He writes: “We inquire not in how many languages they could speak, but how many they spake in the church; and we believe that they spake Hebrew only.” (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations, Vol. 4, pg. 258).
While Lightfoot did not outright deny the inspiration of the Bible, he is noted for stripping revelation of its supernatural elements, and bringing the doctrines of Scripture into accord with the laws of human reason. According to Lightfoot’s approach, the Scriptures were treated as divinely-endorsed human documents, and not as transcendent communications steeped in the miraculous and extraordinary.
Fast-forward again to the 19th century. During this period, it became obvious that Preterism was growing alongside the skepticism of the Higher Critical schools, as something of a collateral movement. The relation between Preterism and Higher Criticism is evidenced in the works of liberal academics like Moses Stuart, Samuel Lee, and P.S. Desprez.
But while their writings show how quickly the Preterist leaven was proliferating among academics, the damage it did within the church is not to be underestimated. Canon F.W. Farrar (1831-1903), an Anglican clergyman, had imbibed the poison of the critical schools. Thus his writings teem with a cold unbelief in the supernatural. Farrar went so far as to deny the authorship of the Book of Daniel, alleging that it was written by a “pious Jew” of the post-exilic period. Farrar disagreed that the “cutting off of the Messiah” (Dan. 9: 26) had anything to do with our Lord. He rather insisted that it pointed to the deposition and murder of the high priest Onias III. Farrar was also a universalist, who denied the doctrine of eternal punishment.
The prime example of Preterist unbelief of that period, however, is seen in Scotch clergyman J. Stuart Russell’s 1878 book, The Parousia. In this tome Russell covertly attacked the inspiration of the Bible. Like Eusebius, Russell found the Apocalypse a perfect target for his critical marksmanship.
Speaking of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” Russell writes: “It must be remembered that it is a poem rather than a history that we are now reading; a drama, rather than a journal of transactions, and that there is no book in which poetical and dramatic effect is more studied than in the Apocalypse.” (pg. 510).
Hence, Russell basically denied that Revelation was the word of God. In fact, when he saw inconsistencies between his own interpretation and the actual facts, rather than question his Preterist theory he treated the Scriptures as human documents.
Here’s a case in point. After doing his utmost to prove that the first beast of Revelation 13 was actually emperor Nero, Russell realized that Nero’s death in A.D. 68 did not fit in with his being “taken alive” at Jesus Christ’s alleged A.D. 70 parousia, as detailed in Revelation 19: 20. Russell’s explanation is as follows: “No doubt there is something here of an anachronism. The death of Nero is placed in the vision subsequent to the judgment of Jerusalem, whereas it actually preceded that event by two years or more. As we before remarked, something must be conceded to poetic license. In an epic, a drama, or a vision, it is unreasonable to require strict chrononolgical sequence.” (pg. 512).
This type of interpretation was perfectly compatible with Russell’s disbelief in the Divine authorship of the Apocalypse. Russell seems to have viewed the prophets as nothing more than eastern poets gifted with a dose of prescience. He writes: “First of all, the utterances of the prophets are poetry; and secondly, they are Oriental poetry.” (pg. 350).
Let the reader note that Russell’s work The Parousia is viewed among Preterist circles as the official “hornbook” of their teachings. It has had more impact upon the “Modern Preterist” movement than any other work. Partial Preterist Ken Gentry writes: “Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compelling written volume. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject, and has had great impact on my thinking.”
Incidentally, Gentry is one of the main proponents of the view that Nero was the Antichrist. He, along with colleagues Gary DeMar and James Jordan, has helped produce books and videos espousing this view. As typical of his teaching, Gentry argues that the “huge hailstones, of one hundred pounds each” mentioned in Revelation 16: 21, were actually boulders thrown by Roman catapaults during the siege of Jerusalem! For more information on Gentry’s rationalism, see Dr. Thomas Ice’s article, 100 Pound Hailstones.
After all this unbelief in the inspiration of Scripture, how refreshing it is when we come to the 20th century, and are met by a salutary wave of old-fashioned pre-millennialism. Speaking of the Apocalypse, Clarence Larkin, one of the chief proponents of the Dispensational view, wrote: “While the Book of Revelation contains many symbols, they are explained in the book, and we must not forget that it is not a mysterious book, for it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing to te reader. Rev. 1: 1-3. The Book is to be taken literally.” (Dispensational Truth, pg. 104).
Any impartial student of church history will clearly see why Dispensationalism has grown so rapidly during the past decades, to the point where it is now the chief faith of Christendom. Because it is based on childlike belief in the Word of God, it must have a greater attraction for all kinds of men. The esoteric and elitist tendencies of Preterism, however, make the latter view a bad bet for the church. And this is probably why most of its adherents are numbered among liberal intellectuals.
But although Preterism is not as widely accepted as it was during the 19th century, its modern proponents still carry on the old tradition of denial. And such behavior can only result in a dead faith, which is totally unable to save souls. I even go so far as to say that in many cases, Preterism may result in the loss of individual salvation. In the coming weeks I hope to bring out further the dangers of such theology. Until then, carefully study the above information, and you’ll see that Preterism is really a theology that is steeped in unbelief. And regardless of our professions, let it be known that no unbeliever shall inherit the kingdom of God.
