| Written by Samuel Frost | |||
| Wednesday, 14 March 2007 08:07 | |||
| I consider Dennis to be a good friend of mine and have fellowshipped with him many times. Hopefully, after this article is read, that fellowship will remain intact. With that being said, I do want to critically evaluate his article Introduction to a Hybrid of Preterism and Idealism [1]. I printed the article of twenty pages (numbered 1-20) and will use that for numbering my footnotes from this article. An Anti-Theological Approach? The first thing that struck me was not the "hybrid" Dennis is attempting to construct, but for the reasons why he was doing so. He thinks he is accomplishing something that is "superior for internal spiritual rest and peace" (5). This must mean that issues of "sin", "death" and "law", which some preterists have written off, are "not for today" (along with the Holy Spirit, faith, and preaching the gospel). Here, it appears, Dennis is reacting to what we at Reign of Christ Ministries have always called hyper-preterism. This includes those who see no need for baptism, the Lord's Table, or church officers. But, he goes further than that. He speaks of some FP (full preterists) as being "mentally convinced of the "absolute gospel truth of full preterism."" (5). Is there something wrong with being "mentally convinced"? Further, he seems to fall victim to the "faculty psychology" of Freud by dividing the "head" from the "heart" (15). Full preterism is head knowledge but the reason it has not yet exploded into converting the masses is because of its "coldness" (15). I have yet to see this in my experience, but I am not the one arguing from my experiences to point out the need to abandon FP. I try to keep experiences out of theological conceptualizing. However, with that said, my mind, as a result of FP, has been deeply affected - for the better. I asked one lady I ministered to while we had a regular church meeting what difference has preterism made for her. Her answer has burned in me for years: "it has made me a nicer person." We can site individual reactions to views all day long, and none of these will "prove" the need for anything one way or the other. Our bottom line is always: what does the Bible say? Dennis continues, though, in this fashion. Reformed FP are not universalists, not because of what the Bible says, but because we are committed more to Reformed soteriology (15). He then asks, "In light of the question of consistency, it should be considered how a consistent full preterist view, which acknowledges that the law, the devil, sin, and such were utterly destroyed in AD70, could not be considered lending itself to Comprehensive Redemption?" (15). We have been laboring on that very point for over 8 years now and believe that Evangelical theology has provided the answer: Story Framework. In other words, the Bible, particularly the Prophets, speak more to life in the Age to Come (our own day) than anything else. They defined the Age to Come. I will speak to this later. But, it seems that since questions have been raised, and since Dennis recognizes the "shoddy" work of "amateurs" (13) on the Internet (and methinks that's the real problem here - lack of intense theological training), then a need for another "hybrid" must be sought for. In roughly only 20 years of FP "scholarship", it must be abandoned! Luther's reform, if placed under such standards, never would have gotten off of the ground! Forget Copernicus! It wasn't until 60 years later that Kepler really made the heliocentric model fly. I think that Dennis is being far too premature here and has let some personal matters influence his thinking. This experience based criticism of Dennis is made more explicit as he continues: "By insisting that the devil, law, sin and death have been utterly destroyed for all in AD70, it leaves a sense of failure within those who find themselves still very much under the chains of law and sin in their own lives" (16). I have been a Christian all of my life. For 39 years I have been going to one church or another. I witnessed all sorts of "bondage". I myself have been in what some would call "bondage" to addictive substances. Was it the devil? Demons? Was it because I was "under the law"? Was it because I was "in the flesh"? Or was it because I did not "break through" to God in my prayer life? Was it because I spoke in tongues, or denied tongues? Was it because I was a Calvinist, or an Arminianist? Is FP now the culprit so that we have to look for another new view so that I can quit smoking and occasionally having one too many? In other words, do I need the devil, the law of Moses and covenantal understanding of "the sin" and "sin under the law of Moses" in order to explain why I had eight beers the other night instead of only three? This question applies to anything else that could be called, "sin." There are different Greek and Hebrew words for "sin" and they don't all mean the same thing. But, that requires a massive study of these words and their contexts. If one definition of "sin" is no longer needed, does that mean every definition is no longer needed? Did "evil" end in A.D. 70? Hardly. How do I know? The Bible tells me so. "Though many teachers may think that a proper doctrinal explanation of the victory we have in Christ should be sufficient to overcome this internal crisis, it is not nearly so effective; in fact, when your heart is suffering, the last thing that is needed is a pep talk or a mind game. No amount of head knowledge can heal heart suffering... rather, it makes the pain even more acute, and the situation seem even more hopeless" (16). Notice, again, the disparaging of "mind" and "head knowledge". If one runs a study of "heart" in the Hebrew, one will find that it means and is translated "mind". "As the heart thinks...." In the Bible, the heart thinks. More precise: the heart is the mind thinking. Another term for it is the "conscience." What is the cure for this "crisis"? Not more theology. Not a "pep-talk", but Pret-Idealism! Dennis makes this plain enough: "In spite of doctrinal problems, however, it was the clear inability of the view to answer the most important internal questions such as "what now?" and "why do I struggle if sin and the devil were utterly destroyed in ad70" that drove my quest for an explanation that could address the deepest needs of Christians. Though this motivation has been dismissed as compromised by being "seeker sensitive," it is the pastor's heart within that seeks to protect the flock by driving off the wolves (which are bad doctrines, not people)" (5). So, even here, to rescue the crushed heart, who is crushed because of a doctrinal inability to reason why he still masturbates to pornography if he, while a full preterist, no longer believes in "sin" and the "devil", must understand that the reason he is confused is because of his FP. He needs the pastor to drive off the bad doctrines of FP (pep-talk? Head knowledge?). Then, when this person sees that devil, sin and the law of Moses are manifested in every generation in cyclical fashion, and that this points to the "substance" of the spiritual reality of the parousia and presence of Christ, then the "deepest needs" of his heart, not his head, will be thrown into "peace". "And what is striking is that even as many of those in leadership positions in the past have dropped out as a result of their own inability to find rest and peace within the full preterist framework, the fundamental problem is left unadressed (sic). Dismissing the applicability of the tensions displayed in the New Testament, I believe, has a lot to do with this. By assuming perfection and total completion, we lose the results that come from the tension between old and new, and are only left with confusion as to why things aren't better than they are" (16). It is perhaps because we have a different audience who read the materials we offer that I read this with a little confusion! Maybe Dennis has encountered these folks, but in my 15 years of Preterism, I have not. In fact, I can refer the reader to one of many books (a pep talk, head game, I know) that shows that things are getting better. I plan to present that at my talk in Ohio this April. One's perspective, we believe, is flawed because the Bible is not informing it. Somehow, FP has become associated with "no more evil things in the world." But, when one sees that the Prophets themselves foretell of evil remaining in the Age to Come, this problem ceases. In fact, every Christian theology runs into this problem. Dispies have evil in the Millennium. Eternal conscience torment has evil existing forever, for that is the very thing that is being punished. Read Gerstner where he says to the effect that sinners are being punished eternally because they are eternally sinning. The reason I point out these views is that a large majority of Christian theology incorporates some eternality of evil. What, you became a FP and expected not to wrestle with the knowledge of good and evil any more? If God set it up that way in the beginning heavens and earth, what would make you think that it would not follow the pattern in the new heavens and the new earth? Sure, the devil is gone, but his role as prosecuter/accuser on the basis of law is finished. He no longer serves a useful purpose in the story. If you want him, you can have him. Just let me know by the gift of peering into the supernatural world where he is so that I can avoid him. A crisis is caused by old paradigms not being able to answer new questions (as Thomas Kuhn so correctly pointed out). An old paradigm must be replaced by another to resolve the crises. This is true. But, sometimes the crisis is merely caused by other factors as well that are irrelevant to the paradigm. The person who drinks too much will still drink too much even if he swallows (pun) Dennis' new hybrid. My own personal issues were not the result of my theology. In fact, FP has helped me deal with those issues effectively. Once I saw that I was no longer dealing with the devil, sin, and condemnation from God based upon performing 10 Keys For Successfully Pleasing God, my ability to begin to deal with issues realistically started. No more overnight vows ("I'll never do that again"). No more running to the altar and "rededicating" myself to the Lord. And no more nights spent abusing the "hell" out of myself for being such a wicked person. Jesus has set me free, not just "partially" or "ideally", but really and fully. Yes, this needs to be worked out in terms of theological scrutiny and that's why we started what we have started at Reign of Christ Ministries. It was the crises caused by the old eschatological models that brought about the new model of Full Preterism. The old models did not make sense. But, it appears to this writer that Dennis wants to integrate the worst of the old models back into some sort of "hybrid" model of preterism. He thinks it is necessary to have the devil, the Law, and the Death reintroduced in order to make sense of why Christians "struggle." Dennis, as the article continues, points out again that he is dealing with an extreme form of FP. Talking about how audience relevance is not really what it is all cracked up to be, he writes, "This trend of thinking slices and dices the Word, eliminating, in some cases, the need for prayer, the need for faith, and the existence of the Holy Spirit -- as well as the applicability of the Gospel of Christ itself!" (17). It is perhaps because of Dennis' posting so much material from anything remotely sporting the name "preterist" that this conclusion has arisen in some folks' minds. I have encountered one site ran by Steve Smith. I read three articles. I deleted them and the website from my computer. These were extremists. Run from them as fast as possible. FP does not "lead" to this. And, no, one is not being inconsistent if it does not lead to this. Those are broad generalizations. Each website, each individual spouting FP must be looked at as an individual, judged as an individual and received or not received as an individual. They cannot be taken as "representative" of the whole view. Not only is this an illogical (informal) thing to do, but we could not do that for any other view. Calvin's personal life and personal time when he was living should be taken to reflect every Calvinist (or ism for that matter). Same for Luther and Lutherans. Are all believers in quantum physics like Einstein? Each website is under its own merits and each should make that known. I remember coming to Dennis' website back in the mid or late nineties and simply being overwhelmed. What is preterism? Well, at general, at bottom, at its most common link is something significant happened in A.D. 70 that has been generally overlooked by scholars, if and only if you were coming from a Dispensationalist world, because the Presbyterians and Lutherans, and some Church of Christ folks, and many, many scholars have known about this for some time. I just crawled out from under a rock. Some FP have taken this common denominator and ran with it to their own oblivion. Todd thinks it is because of FP. I think it is because they went afoul of the Bible. To point out the oblivion of some, and then charge the entire system and those who hold to it as at fault is most illogical. Dennis again uses the language of Freud: "the inability of the mind to satisfy the heart" (15) is the charge he brings to Full Preterism. I am not sure how the "heart" is going to work out its interpretation, but since Dennis has not told us in detail, then we are left to speculate. As I have already pointed out, it appears that Dennis is mainly targeting the extreme forms of FP. As with the interpretive approach of FP, Dennis writes, "whatever advantage this may provide is more than nullified by the vast amounts of damaging doctrines reached as a result of embracing its fundamental conclusions" (17). By this he means, "Is it dangerous to one's faith to say that the Holy Spirit is no longer for today, having been marginalized by the parousia of Christ? Absolutely. It is an overthrow of people's faith to claim that faith itself is not for today, having been superseded by sight? Certainly. Is it destructive to teach that the gospel is not for today as many do, having been a specific message to the Jews of the approach of the kingdom? Without question" (17). To this let me add that I agree. But, perhaps Dennis is more aware of these types of FP schemes. I tuned them out years ago, but my point is that I tuned them out because they do not follow the teaching of Scriptures concerning the Age to Come. The Scriptures do not teach that in the Age to Come "faith" is no longer required. They do not teach that the Holy Spirit ceases His activity. They do not teach in the slightest that the Gospel stops being preached after the Second Coming. Dennis has rightly stated that these forms of hyper-preterism need to be abandoned, but it appears that he wants to abandon them, not for the reason of theological clarity or lack thereof, but because we need the devil around in order to explain why Johnny Christian still likes to watch rated R movies and drink too much on occasion. This is hardly a reason more than it is a failure to appreciate the truth of biblical FP. He stated that anyone teaching what we have in the victory of Christ is simply giving a "pep talk." It does not heal the "heart" (which he has pitted against the head). Thus, having the devil, the law, the sin, and the death still around somehow (and he does not explain how) helps heal the heart. After all, I don't struggle with alcohol for any other reason than the fact the devil tempts me daily, the law is over me all the time and the sin is constantly tugging at my heart. I am still in "transition" from "glory to glory" (16). Can a FP framework answer these charges? Dennis does not think (or feel) that it can, but the reasons (from his head or from his heart?) he has given for why it cannot are hardly justifiable. There is a better solution; better than going back to theological Egypt where we are still "in bondage", which is exactly what Dennis suggests that we do. The Theology of Idealist Preterism Here I will begin the second part of this paper to point out some of the theological aspects of Dennis' view. Some of it has already been pointed out. Basically, Dennis wants an "already/not yet" scheme. For him, the "transition" period from Christ's incarnate ministry to His spiritual ministry is recognized for the first century Christians (16). I don't have to read preterist materials to understand this. In fact, I make it a habit not to read any preterist material unless it is highly academic (like Max King, Don Preston, Kurt Simmons - who, though I disagree with, has kept a standard of academics in his writings owing to his educated background and practice). I do not pay much attention to the "new preterist website" written by Johnny Preterist who all of the sudden has become an "expert" in Greek and Hebrew (by consulting his Strong's of course), and a theological beacon. Dennis disparages of these types, too (13). Back to my point, I don't have to read preterist materials to get the idea of a unique transition generation of the first century Christians. I simply need to consult James Bannerman, author of The Church of Christ (Still Waters Revival Books, 1991, reprint - 1869). Bannerman taught alongside of the great Calvinist William Cunningham at Edinburgh, Scotland. He was, and is, highly esteemed as a theologian. I used him in my book, Misplaced Hope, to show that the transition period from natural Judaism to spiritual Judaism (Christianity) ended in A.D. 70. I make the point that we try to build off of tradition instead of seeking to obliterate it. I, for one, cannot stand the mentality of some preterists that reject creeds and councils solely because they are creeds and councils. They do so to their own peril. Now, Dennis does not want this transition period to be framed in a covenantal approach (from Old Covenant to New Covenant). He does not think that that is a correct way. We have already discussed the reasons why he does not. Rather, he wants an existential approach that actually applies the old to new transition to each individual believer today. This is where his approach runs into contradictions and must be abandoned as a plausible solution. By positing that he sees the transition in the NT period he believes that this ended in A.D. 70. But, he must start it up again for every subsequent generation down to our own day. That is, if they had the law of the old going to the law of the new, then we must have that same experience. Far be it that similarities can be shown. Dennis wants what really happened to them to also happen to us. If they had a devil roaming around looking to devour people, then we must have it, too. If they had the law over them and the condemnation of Adam, then we must so, too. The problem here is that nothing ever ends. At least, not here on earth. Spiritual life on earth is dismal. It is full of "tears", "struggles" and hearts needing healing. By rejecting the spiritual preterism, Dennis has hopped the train that Lloyd Dale, John Anderson and some forms of Reformed Preterism like that of Walt Hibbard and Ed Stevens are riding. That is, we don't really have the fullness and perfection of Christ until we die and go to heaven. Anderson has taken this to its logical conclusion: we are not even in the kingdom and born again until we physically die. All of these views/attempts are rooted in one thing: seeing with the eyes. As we have seen, Dennis' reasons for stating that we are not yet perfect are rooted in seeing in the natural. It's odd. Because Dennis wants the natural things to be pointers of the "substance" and invisible things. But, he "sees" tears and struggling among Christians and therefore cannot apply the fullness of the spiritual things to them precisely because they still struggle. "My approach can seem a bit urgent also because I believe there are very real consequences to looking on the outward for the substance of prophetic fulfillment" (5). These consequences are "dangerous" (17). But, isn't Dennis "looking on the outward" Christian and his tears and concluding that the fullness of the "substance" is not yet fully applied? He starts his entire criticism with the explicit acknowledgment that because of the outward struggling of the Christian today, the idea that we are "perfect" and "complete" in Christ must be abandoned. In fact, if we assume that we are perfect and complete in Christ, then we lose the life of the NT struggle and tension (16). I want to point out, again, though that Dennis did not arrive at this conclusion by considering how the fulfillment and perfection of what Christ has done for us in His cross and resurrection can be applied to the believer today in light of the fact that he still struggles, but, rather, starts with the struggling of the Christian (the outward) to conclude that the perfection and fulfillment cannot be applied today en toto. This alone is devastating to his approach. Our approach has been in line with much traditional theology. Preterism does not need to reinvent new theology. It merely needs to see the struggle that theology has had in the past and seek to untangle its knots. Justification by Faith, as a doctrine, has ran into this problem. From a Roman Catholic perspective, an outwardly sinning individual cannot be said to have full justification and pardon from God. This is applying the spiritual to the obviously, outwardly imperfect individual. Rather, then, justification is infused and becomes, in terms of process, akin to sanctification. No one can lay claim, they say, to complete holiness. One cannot arrive at that day until the process has ended in glorification; resurrection. But, the Reformed theologians argued that justification is immediate and entire. The New Perspectivists have criticized this older view of the Reformed faith. What's going on here? Eschatology! I cannot spell it out here, obviously. But, the theological reasons given for applying perfect, justifying salvation to the believer in spite of the fact of his outward imperfection has already been done centuries ago. I apply the same theological reasoning to sanctification and glorification. By seeing the Second Coming as already past, justification can be applied today fully and entirely, as well as sanctification and glorification. They are spiritual applications. The New Perspectivists says, rightly so, that since the Second Coming has not yet happened, then no one can be completely justified any more than any one can claim they have been completely sanctified. Dennis appears to be echoing the New Perspectivists. If Dennis cannot apply glorification and sanctification immediately to the believer today (as a result of the finished work of Christ), then neither can he apply full justification and pardon for sins to the individual today. This follows by strict logic. We are either in process from "glory to glory" as he believes we still are, or we are not. If we are, then I would agree with the New Perspectivists: we are not fully and entirely justified and must work to show that we are in Christ through Church participation and high moral living (now we get into the homeschooling crowd and women wearing only dresses crowd). The problem is eschatology. Dennis' solution affirms A.D. 70. However, "The differences between FP and P-I are actually quite fundamental, resulting in a countless number of divergences. The key difference is in where one sees the ultimate realm of prophetic fulfillment -- whether seeing prophecy referring exclusively to natural events (and their consequential spiritual application) fulfilled once-for-all in history, as in the case of FP, or in seeing Israel's prophecies and natural events as pictures signifying the greater realities fulfilled eternally in Christ, as is typically the case with P-I" (4). Now, one may not see the difference here in this paragraph. But, there is a difference. The ultimate "realm" of course is "up there" somewhere in heaven. It isn't here on earth because evil still exists, as well the sin, the law and the devil. Now, I will quote Dennis' article at length, because in the beginning points, he sounds like our Mike Grace, who has been feverishly laboring in hermeneutics proper for the last several years. "Though most full preterist systems don't deny that spiritual truths can be applied from the events of AD70 (though some do), the Idealist hybrid being presented in this article (which is just one of many) takes exactly the opposite view -- that AD70 itself was the application of everlasting spiritual realities. (That the fall of Jerusalem was given to illuminate greater things is completely consistent with the entire history of Israel's "schoolmaster" role to point to everlasting realities in Christ Jesus.) Therefore, by focusing primarily on the shadows and types given to signify true prophetic fulfillment, one misses their true significance altogether. This is not to dismiss the natural show, but rather to illuminate it, allowing the temple to stand (and fall) for that which it was always intended - a visible show of invisible things" (5). I don't think I could have said this better myself. In sum, "The things we see help us understand the things we can not" (5). Apply this to the believer: I cannot "see" that you are perfect, but I understand through revelation knowledge and the verdict of God that you are. By seeing that you are not perfect in this world helps me to understand the nature of the perfection that you have in Christ. It is a top-down understanding. I call the things that are not as though they were. I see an imperfect Christian, but I call him, "perfect" in every way. Next, he goes on to consider an interpretation of Church history: "In this light, the Roman-Jewish War was an even more significant event than is appreciated by even the most informed. It was, after all, not only the complete end of the people of God as an external nation, forever ending those religious and political things which were only ever "in part" or "copies of the true," but it was also the visible show of God's invisible hand as it works throughout all generations -- within His people, and upon His enemies" (5). And, "The reason why the entirety of Christian history on earth could thrive spiritually despite near complete ignorance of the Roman-Jewish war has to do with the fact that "AD70" didn't fulfill the eternal promises in Christ, but simply pointed thereto" (5). This last statement is a bit puzzling. A.D. 70 didn't "fulfill" anything, but pointed to the eternal promises in Christ. It was a fulfillment of promises given to Daniel, and it pointed to the eternal promises of Christ. But what are the eternal promises of Christ? Paul said that Jesus "came to fulfill the promises made to our forefathers", the Jewish forefathers and the promise made to Adam: that satan's head would be crushed, the sin would be brought to an end and the death would be swallowed up in victory. It is here that, as noted above, Dennis gets into confusion. The A.D. 70 event was not Jesus' second appearing, even though Hebrews 9.27 explicitly tells us this. It was, instead, pointing to the fact that Jesus was "already" reigning forever in heaven (6). What happened to the "transition period" he affirms? There was no "not yet"? He affirms, rightly so, that there is an "inside" and "outside" motif in the Kingdom of God. Again, Reign of Christ ministries has pointed out this in the OT and the NT, especially in the Gospel of Mark. Universalism is explicitly denied because the patterns of the stories, which make up the meta-story will not allow it. Preterist Universalism fails because it breaks the patterns - it breaks the stories. Here, Dennis goes on to suggest, rightly so, that the Kingdom of God grows and expands. This is in keeping with the numerous prophecies in the OT concerning the enlarging of the nation of Israel (Is 54, for example). This started back in Genesis as well when Noah speaks to his three sons. Ham is marked, but Shem will enlarge his tents to include Japheth. One has to follow the patterns in the story, so that when the substance arrived it would be easily identifiable according to the Scriptures (the Hebrew Bible). Anything not taught in the OT is not taught in the NT. Jesus announced that his kingdom, the one that was "near" and "at hand" and would "come" within that "generation" and was already making pre-parousaic preparations within his people, would be "like a mustard seed." Jerusalem's Fall would point to and mark the arrival of this kingdom on earth within God's people. But, the Fall was natural, and, naturally, was loud. The arrival of the kingdom was spiritual, and came with a still, small drop of a tiny mustard seed. You could hardly see its arrival. But, it would grow, and is growing, and will continue to grow so that "all the birds of the air" can come in and find rest among its branches. I think Dennis and I would agree here more or less, but this hardly leads to where he is going. The resurrection of the dead, the great, white throne judgment, etc. are all rightly seen as events that occur not in the natural realm, but in the spiritual realm. True. Physical bodies did not come out of their tombs in A.D. 70. It is good to see that Dennis here is still preteristic. He sees the continuing application of the resurrection of the dead to all those who have believed and will believe, and here he sounds more Reformed than ever. Sifting through the details here would allow for a great room of agreement between Dennis and our own work. If one were reading Dennis up to this point, not much has been said that would be radically different. Maybe this is because Dennis is targeting more radical forms of hyper-preterism. I certainly have not been paying any attention to these other views. They don't fit the framework, and this is usually seen in a just a few paragraphs, and so I stop reading them at that point. It's like hearing that Joseph Smith claims to be Prophet. I immediately dismiss Mormonism on that basis since prophecy ceased. I don't need to consider Mormon theology any longer. The same is true of Islam. Mohammed was not a Prophet. He was a con-artist. Dennis makes this plain in what he is targeting: "By looking at one historical manifestation of the everlasting substance and declaring it to be the only application contemplated by the Word of God has consequences upon peoples' lives" (7). Correct. Resurrection (regeneration) still happens today (see this wonderful article). Faith is still necessary today. Gospel preaching and church fellowship are necessary today. The law written in our hearts is not a list of suggestions. For Paul, the "law written in the heart" is summed up in one word for the Christian: conscience (see this article). However, when Dennis moves to consider his next topic, he writes, "One dramatic consequence of looking to events of the natural realm as the complete fullness of prophetic intent is to divorce the applicability of the internal tensions and pressures of the New Testament people from our lives -- as well as the solutions they found to settle the inner turmoil in the midst of persecution" (7). It is here that the issues raised above begins. Dennis denies that "near" and "at hand" mean "40 years" in the typical FP treatment. He affirms the "transition" period (40 years), but then strangely quotes a list passages that show that everything was already fulfilled before A.D. 70. Scholars, with which we agree, and who are not preterists, have long noted Paul's Greek language of transition. The famous phrase, "I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved" says it all. This can apply equally to justification and sanctification. These Greek verbs, as Dennis fails to mention, are temporal forms. Thus, we speak of these as complete (aorist, either in regard to time or without regard to time, but never devoid of time), on-going (present aspect), and future. From one standpoint, it is complete, from another it is being made complete, and from another, something will happen to complete it. From this, the FP framework of the Forty Years, matching the patterns of previous OT stories, to A.D. 70 fits this Greek analysis like a glove. I do not need to consult preterists here. I need to consult Greek, technical commentaries to make my case. It didn't take much work to fit the FP framework into already existing theological concepts. That's why I like reading the dead guys. So, on one hand, Dennis affirms the transition period, and acknowledges that "the Roman-Jewish War was an even more significant event than is appreciated by even the most informed. It was, after all, not only the complete end of the people of God as an external nation, forever ending those religious and political things which were only ever "in part" or "copies of the true."" (5). That is, the transition period lead to the complete end of the people of God as an external nation. So, something happened in A.D. 70 which was not to be repeated. The transition period marked a heading towards the "complete end". This was unique, historically speaking. So Dennis appears to affirm. Also, as we have seen, Dennis ties the resurrection of the dead, the Judgment and the Second Coming to A.D. 70. Much of Dennis' reasoning here about establishment and manifestation can be seen most notably in Reformed theology. He points out John Gill, the staunch Calvinist who greatly influenced the works of modern Reformed theologians such as Clark, Reymond, Henry and Machen. If one is not familiar with these theological, and often difficult, concepts one may miss the full import of Dennis' treatment. I noted that that is one of the problems in FP: lack of theological thinking. It is interesting, though, to note that Dennis recommends Gill when he so disparages the "head" versus the "heart." "In the case of full preterism, it is generally treated as axiom that beyond AD70, in the historical "new covenant age," or "new heavens and earth," there is a new administration between God and the world at large... as opposed to simply a greater level of revelation of that which has always been the reality" (12). True. We have argued this point as well. The inside/outside motif of the entire Bible did not change in A.D. 70. God's stories has been illustrating this pattern since the Garden of Eden (Adam was created outside the Garden, taken and place "inside" the Garden, then exiled "out". This is a constant pattern in the Patriarchs and Israel and Jesus Himself). In short, the "reality" of what is revealed in a greater degree in Christ is that the inside/outside is a heavenly reality. Again, Universalism must be denied on this point because it breaks the mold. It is foreign. How this applies to the devil, the law, the sin, and the death Dennis attempts to spell out, but fails. Instead of seeing another solution, Dennis is reacting to the most extreme forms of FP. I think he himself goes to the extreme in the other direction, wanting to make every verse in the Bible individually meaningful for today by way of application, divorcing, it appears, any reading of Scripture through historical exegesis (a valid form of exegesis accepted by all Evangelical canons of thought). Dennis heads towards a mystical approach: "There are predictable consequences of viewing scripture solely in its "historical context," considering it as only to Jews under the "old covenant age" and the "old heavens and earth" -- and not to anyone "today." (many will say "the scriptures were not written TO us, but they are FOR us.. to which I disagree, considering that the author is not truly the historical man who put words to paper, but is the eternal Logos Spirit, speaking to His offspring - "See Original Writers' Intent Not Final Authority on Meaning"). This distinction between the written word and the Living Word reveals the bigger picture, in that we can either approach the study according to our man-centered level of comprehension, attempting to box in redemptive history with our futile systems of explanation (letter killeth), or we can recognize that what is at play is something completely transcendent and timeless (spirit giveth life)" (12,13). I can infer from this that Dennis' view is not "man made"? I can also see that he applies his own rule. The phrase "letter killeth" is from Paul. There, as virtually every modern commentator would agree, he is speaking of the outward form of obedience to Moses. But, with Dennis' existential and mystical approach, the "letter killeth" does not need a historical context. The phrase can now mean anything that is, "attempting to box in redemptive history with our futile systems of explanation." Very postmodern. But, this begs the question of Dennis' hybrid view. Is that not a box? And is he not trying to explain why Christians still struggle? If one follows this approach, the Scriptures can come to mean anything, so long as it is applied in a meaningful way, and did not rely on historical investigation. Next, he moves on to consider the issues of universalism. It is somehow implied that if "the Death" is destroyed, then universalism can make a case. False. Every eschatology has an end to "the Death". When the Death is destroyed for, say, Premillennialists, does that mean that everyone is now brought to heaven? How can some remain in the Second Death when the First Death is gone? Dennis seems to think that this is a serious problem. "And though I do not embrace Universalism myself, I absolutely recognize that to them belongs the progressive banner of full preterism, and that they are correct to declare themselves the most consistent preterists" (14). This is entirely false. If it were true, then every eschatological system leads to universalism because every system, at some point, has an end to the Death! Dennis' remarks here are not based on reasoning, but upon something else. "The numbers do not lie, and point directly to the intimate relationship between all forms of full preterist eschatology and Universalism. In the coming months, the two hundred year history of Preterist Universalism will be presented here" (14). Again, what numbers? Where did he get these numbers? Were they accurately taken, and monitored and checked several times for flaws? When was a national, historical census taken to reflect these numbers? Where's the data? Or, is Dennis merely reflecting something else? Universalism is not a preterist problem precisely because preterism did not invent universalism! One can go back to Origen for that. Christians are to blame for Universalism, therefore, Christians are wrong! Just because some universalists are using preterism for a framework that they think helps there case does not make Dennis' accusations here true. This type of arguing I am used to hearing from atheists who reason that Luther was catalyst for Hitler's power. Dennis should be above such types of obvious fallacies. "Considering the sweeping nature of the fundamental assumption of world-wide New Covenant / New Heavens and Earth application in the post-AD70 environment, the answers given to that question demand intense scrutiny. Though particular answers to that dilemma have been offered, they usually require the creation of a previously unknown damning "law of Christ" or some other "doctrinal patch" to cover this hole -- such as a redefinition of "second death," or the creation of a brand new laws which secure for them the balance between particular atonement with universal eschatology. Obviously, the Reformed answer will be that Adam's death still applies to those not in Christ -- which is precisely the point of this article.. that the consummation is to be found IN CHRIST, and not in history. To say that the "consummation of the ages is in ad70" in a universal fashion, and then to make the reception of atonement individually in Christ regardless of that consummation is the inconsistency with which the "historical corporate consummationism" of the Reformed (all limited atonement full preterist systems) are forced to live" (15). I hope this is not a technical response from Dennis. Let us rephrase his words here in light of Isaiah 26.10, speaking of the new heavens and new earth: "And the wicked man is shown grace, he does not learn righteousness even in a land of uprightness. And he does not see the majesty of the Lord" (my translation). "It is taught among Reformed full prets that death was defeated for all, yet that one must be in Christ to receive its benefits" (15). Grace is shown to all, but the wicked do not receive its benefits. They do not see the majesty of the Lord. How can that be? Further, in Zechariah 14.1-11 is, largely, Rev 21, 22. After the events of 1-11 we have 12-21. Not all nations submit. But, "there is only one king over all the land" (14.9). How can Yahweh rule over the world, yet some nations receive not the benefits of this reign? When seen in this light, Dennis appears to forget that there is a Second Death. This is much like the First Death. In Greek, it is "the Death" and "the second one, the Death". The First Death came through Adam and is equal to "the condemnation" (Rom 5). So, why would we not think that since the Tree of Life is now manifest in God's People, that the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil ceased? Man has two trees to eat from. Following the pattern, the eternal reality of creation is seen also in the Age to Come new heavens and new earth. You have two Trees. Dismiss the Tree of Life (fail to submit to the King of all the Earth and who is King over all the kingdoms of the world), and is there not to be any condemnation? The new covenant is not a condemnation-less covenant! No universalist can get around the FACT of The Second One, The Death." Dennis says this is "redefinition". In what way he never explains. He just makes the charge and moves on, parading the universalists as the most consistent FP system! The fact of the matter is that Dennis' view falls apart here, too. He must deal with the swallowing up of "the death" and "the second one, the death." When was "the Death" swallowed? Dennis still has it around. When was satan's head crushed? He is still "roaming." When did the Second Death take the place of the now defunct First Death, since the First Death is thrown into the power of the fires of the Second Death. It is condemned, as well as satan and the beast. When did this happen? Or, has it always been the eternal heavenly reality only now being manifested that it has always been the case that the Death has been swallowed up in the Second Death? Confused yet? Good. Conclusion This has been one of the toughest periods in my life. I have aimed my guns at Ed Stevens rapture solution, and because I am friends with Virgil Vaduva and lend a hand at Planet Preterist, I have lost a few friends (Dave Green was one of them, who thinks very close along our lines). John Anderson and Lloyd Dale have gone off the path in our estimation as well. And, now, Todd Dennis. One would think that FP is falling apart, but, I comfort myself with history. The Reformation was falling apart and the Peasants Revolt almost killed it. One could say this about anything. I don't follow empirically based criticisms. I could easily site numbers and e-mails with our website, or with Planet Preterist that shows a remarkable growth. I don't encounter universalists much. I have met maybe two or three. I have conversed with some of them. But I don't see them in droves. I have spoken at every major preterist conference in the past 6 years and I just don't see it. I see new faces every years, but not raving universalists. Yes, I have heard of stories of those losing their faith over FP. Again, that case can be made for Calvinism and Arminianism. It's a fallacy to argue like that. So, I never pay attention to those types of arguments. We just kept on digging in Evangelical scholarship and journals, documenting the confirmation of the biblical FP framework, not going to the extremes of hyper-preterism, not going back to the useless "already/not yet" scheme. Dennis applies the already/not yet to us today so that Christian sin can be meaningful. After all, that's what he is really after. Let's review quickly the facts: 1. FP cannot answer the reason why Christians sin. 2. Universalism is the most logically consistent FP framework. Therefore, 3. We must apply the law, the sin, and the devil to the Christian again to answer number1. And, we must abandon FP so that we do not arrive at the more consistent universalistic FP. That's it in a nutshell. How Dennis attempts to do this results in a quasi-mystical approach to interpreting the Scriptures. The individual, rather than the text read in its historically God-given time, takes precedent. "God spoke to us in the past..." (Hebr 1.1). We must accept that God is timeless and all the truths of the promises have always been fulfilled. They are only being manifested in time as pointing to this fact. But, they are not always manifested and established for the individual, even though, they may be timelessly true. I sound like a Buddhist here. For me, this is far from biblical reasoning. Dennis disdains logical reasoning as man centered and head knowledge. It cannot answer the "heart." I could argue against these notions in massive detail, but for now, step back and take a picture of what you have just read between Dennis and myself. Rather than see a need for the devil, the law and the sin, I can see that in the Age to Come, the Bible does not see a cessation of evil knowledge (evil thinking), nor does it see a mass conversion of every human being. Universalism does not fulfill any OT prophecy, therefore it is wrong. The cessation of evil does not fulfill any biblical prophecy. The Death is swallowed up in Isaiah, but people still die, still refuse to see the manifestation of the grace of God and learn righteousness. They are subjected to what Isaiah called "the fire of sulpher". John got it from Isaiah. If Isaiah didn't say it, neither did John. I do not, then, need the devil. I have the knowledge of good and evil. Not every sin is a transgression of Moses' law. By Dennis' stereotypically reducing the Christian struggle today to "bondage" and "chains" to sin, he has effectively dismissed the context of Paul (that's a letter killeth reading), and has effectively undercut the work of Christ in terms of the historical context in which God chose to reveal his Purpose in Christ for all believers. Instead of seeking to describe sin in terms of good and evil and its knowledge, Dennis has jumped back to describe sin in terms of Moses' law. Why he thinks this is good for the Christian today I have no idea. If the death is still around, then so is your condemnation. With the destruction of the Death, the condemnation in Adam was effectively removed. Dennis asks how can this be for the believer, but not for the wicked. This is answered by replacing the First Death with a new heavens and new earth Death, the Second one. Had this not been revealed to us, and had this verdict of God's court been uttered, then universalism can make a case. As such, it cannot. The Second Death prevents universalism from being true. It is like God saying, "the Gospel is going to the world, to being healing to nations and reveal my son, Jesus. But, not every one is going to see my glory. Some will refuse it, and for them, I have decreed a Second Death for those who reject the New Tree of Life." Pretty simple to me...but that's because I am following the Story and the patterns in the stories that make up the Story. These stories all repeat the same Story, and Revelation 21,22 is no different. I have seen Revelation 21,22 before in the OT many times. In fact, it is even in Genesis. There, too, I have seen the knowledge of good and evil. Rather than counseling struggling Christians (of which I am one) with, "you are still fighting the devil, the law and the sin" our approach offers a much more victorious solution. What Christians struggle with is not the Law of Moses, the Old Covenant, the First Death, the Sin, or being "in Adam." What they struggle with is being a new creation in Christ, perfected, made holy and glorified in the Body of Christ while at the same time having the knowledge of Good and Evil. When Adam ate of this tree, God stated, "now he has become like one of us, knowing good from evil." The process to being made in the image of Christ had begun. Christ had the knowledge of good and evil and one more thing Adam did not have: eternal life. Thus, God, in Genesis, cuts man off from the tree of life, "lest he have eternal life." But, it is eternal life with the Father that Jesus came to give. If the knowing good and evil made Adam more "like" God, then how much more "like" God would he be if given eternal life, which "only God is eternal."? The new creation man in Christ knows good from evil and has eternal life. The man in Adam has only knowledge. Now, and this is all too painfully brief, the penalty for Adam was what Paul called, "the condemnation" (Rom 5.16). But, for those in Christ "the condemnation" is no more (Rom 8.1). Indeed, the First Death has been annulled for all men, but for those who hate the Light in the new heavens and new earth, their "condemnation remains" (John 3.18), passing into the Second Condemnation for refusing to eat from the Tree of Life. For the Christian, though, the struggle in the age to come are not because of law, sin and death. It is because he has the knowledge of good and evil. His struggle is not with satan and the first death, but with knowledge. It is with knowledge, applied by the Spirit, that a solution to the struggle can be remedied. I struggle with the knowledge of evil in that I have experienced evil thoughts and did them. This can become a habit. Habits are hard to break. But this is hardly because I am a slave to sin! Such categories are to be rejected. If I am still subjected to the devil, then perhaps exorcism is legitimate! When it is seen that I am not dealing with gambling demons, drinking demons or lust demons, and that I am dealing with something that I can handle through the knowledge of the Gospel with the help and counsel of my friends, then this self-condemnation loathing should begin to fizzle. I am righteous. I am holy. I have been completely made new and because of this fact, I am going to plow through my struggle with evil. My failures with evil we may call, "sin". The Law of the fullness of Christ, which is love, is broken. But, for Adam any infraction of breaking the law of the Garden was met with separation, exile, and condemnation. Is that the case today for the Christian? Would Dennis actually suggest that God condemns us the way he condemned Adam? Is this to be repeated and reapplied? Some Christians have this view, and it is very, very sad. With Adam, God removed him from his presence. With us, because we are made holy and glorified in the Body of Christ, God says, "come here, Son, Daughter. Why do you think the need to run away from me? I do not condemn you. I love you. That's what hurts right now. The love and perfection I have wonderfully bestowed upon you and the glory I have given to you by grace is what hurts you in your heart when you lose occasionally to evil thoughts. But know this! I do not condemn you. Your pain should cause you to come to me, see my grace and my face. Here, now, let me wipe away those tears and put a smile on your face." Dennis' view, nor any other Christian eschatology can offer such a picture of God because he is still, somehow, the God afar off. [1] http://preteristarchive.com/Preterist-Idealism/dennis-todd_06-03.html
|
No comments:
Post a Comment