Skip to main content

Why I Am NOT a Full Preterist

Confession: I flirted with Full Preterism (FP) for a minute back in the day.

If you like to stay abreast of controversies within the conservative Reformed world, you have most likely caught wind of the goings on related to Gary DeMar.  Once the well-beloved author, speaker, and President of American Vision, DeMar has recently becomes controversial, more for the things he refuses to say than for what he has actually said.  His critics can point to few statements made or views espoused, but have called him out for refusing to clarify his views regarding important doctrines like The Second Coming, The Physical Resurrection of the Body, etc.  In short, he has repeatedly refused to affirm the historic, orthodox positions on these matters, choosing rather to equivocate and misdirect.

This would be a red flag for any theologian, but it is doubly dangerous when the aforementioned theologian's specialty is Eschatology.  The debate has mostly remained confined to the dark recesses of social media, so it will be interesting to see if anything official happens, whether a public debate, published articles or books, or a censure from his church or professional colleagues.  He has already pulled out of one speaking engagement due to the controversy, and I'm sure further developments will come.  I don't see how they couldn't, given his position as an author, speaker, etc.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I flirted with FP about a decade ago.  For those who don't know what Preterism is or understand the difference between Partial Preterism (PP) and it's less orthodox cousin, Full Preterism (or as it is pejoratively known, Hyper Preterism) see this article.  My story, in brief, is that I was raised as a Partial Preterist and really began studying Eschatology for myself in my early 20s.  I dove in head first, studying the issue from Revelation, the Epistles, the Gospels, and the Old Testament, and, partially due to online influences, I found myself leaning more and more towards FP.

This left me, frankly, unsettled.  I felt this tug between following my conscience and remaining orthodox, which is a dangerous place to be.  Finding myself with more questions than answers, I finally decided to stop and submit to orthodoxy.  The hedge of orthodoxy as established by the Creeds, Councils, and Tradition of the Catholic Church (properly understood--not the Roman Catholic Church) prevented me from continuing any further down the path to FP.  I still have strong views regarding Eschatology, and I certainly still have questions, but I am content to remain within orthodoxy, even if I can't put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

I share this for two reasons.  Firstly, as an encouragement.  It sometimes seems that some Reformed folks, especially Reformed men who like to read theological books, feel a moral compulsion to follow our intellectual curiosity as far as it will take us, as if submitting theologically to other men is somehow wrong or unreformedEvery man must be a theologian! we cry.  There is certainly truth to that, but, while having a heart to study theology, submitting to the truth of God's Word and not the traditions of men, is Godly and noble, we must temper this desire to be a Berean with humility.  We must balance our thirst for truth with an appropriate recognition of our own finitude and with respect for Christian orthodoxy.  Some doctrines, such as the Trinity, will forever remain beyond the grasp of even the finest of minds.  Sometimes it's okay to rest in orthodoxy, even when you're left with unanswered questions.

Secondly, I wanted to share this as a warning.  Beware those have no respect for orthodoxy.  Beware those who lack a Godly fear of unorthodoxy.  Beware especially those who lurk in the dark recesses of the Internet, enticing others to abandon the historic doctrines of the Christian faith.  I am not the Judge, but I suspect some of them would be better off trying to swim with millstones around their necks.  

FP seems to be especially enticing to a certain subculture (a very small minority) of Reformed men (and a few women) who relish being on the fringe, as if lacking a theological home were somehow noble.  They have created an identity around this us against the world mentality and they count the title heretic as a badge of honor.  This mentality certainly isn't confined to the Reformed world.  It seems that most traditions have this kind of combative, vocal minority.  Steer clear of those kinds of people, whatever tradition they might claim.

I am still a Partial Preterist.  I fully believe that much of the end times prophecy in the Bible has been fulfilled, even most of Revelation.  However, I fully affirm that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and that His kingdom will have no end.  I actively and enthusiastically look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

I do believe that the Bible teaches these things, but I also believe that the Church of Jesus Christ has always affirmed these things as taught by the Scriptures, and I believe that matters.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary