"This Generation" Shall Never Fail

"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. 24: 34).

Hyper-Preterists rely on a special interpretation of the above verse to support their theology that JESUS CHRIST returned in A.D. 70. Unfortunately (for them) their view of the term genea has always been in the minority. When Jesus Christ said that "this generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled," He was promising that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.

St. Chrysostom writes: "How then, one may ask, did He say, 'This generation?' Speaking not of the generation then living, but of that of the believers. For He is wont to distinguish a generation not by times only, but also by the mode of religious service, and practice; as when He saith, 'This is the generation of them that seek the Lord'. For what He said above, 'All these must come to pass,' and again, 'The gospel must be preached,' this He declares here also, saying, All these things shall surely come to pass, and the generation of the faithful shall remain, cut off by none of the things that have been mentioned. For both Jerusalem shall perish, and the more part of the Jews shall be destroyed, but over this generation shall nothing prevail, not famine, not pestilence, not earthquake, nor the tumults of wars, not false Christs, not false prophets, not deceivers, not traitors, not those that cause to offend, not the false brethren, nor any other such like temptation whatever." (Homilies on Matthew, LXXVII, i).

Although the term genea is sometimes used to denote the totality of men living at a given period, Jesus Christ often employs the phrase when referring to the "children of this age." In His parable of the unjust steward, He says: "For the children of this age are in their generation wiser than the children of light" (Luke 16: 8). Likewise, when Jesus rebukes the multitude for their unbelief, He says, "Whereunto shall I liken this generation?" (Matt. 11: 16). And he teaches that "the queen of the south shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it" (Matt. 12: 41). Our Lord is not referring to all men living at that time. Rather, he warns men that the righteous shall condemn the unbelievers in the Day of Judgment.

Jesus Christ's usage of the phrase "this generation" is in accordance with that of the Old Testament. David writes: "Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12: 7). This brings to mind the prophecy of Agur, who wrote: "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. There is a generation that is pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw-teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men" (Proverbs 30: 11-14).

Contrary to the children of this age (that is, the generation of the wicked), stands the generation of the righteous--those who shall inherit the age to come. David writes: "There they were in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous" (Psalm 14: 5). Also: "A seed shall serve Him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation" (Psalm 22: 30). And again, "This is the generation of of them that seek Him, that seek thy face, O God of Jacob" (Psalm 24: 6). Thus there are only two generations in this world. One belongs to the city of God, the other to the city of Babylon. (See Augustine for more information).

When our Lord issued His Olivet Discourse, He was not saying that His predictions would be totally fulfilled within forty years, for He explicitly teaches that, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24: 35). Christ was comforting His church against coming tribulations which we must endure.

In painting the picture of His final coming, He used figurative imagery from Psalm 18, in which David praised God for deliverance from the hand of Saul. Christ instructs us, that while the saints must be prepared to suffer adversities and afflictions, they shall ultimately be redeemed from the hand of their persecutors. This vital truth applies to the righteous of all ages, and not just 'that generation,' as the Full Preterists maintain. It was played out in the national history of Israel, when God's people were redeemed from Egypt, and will be repeated on a larger scale when the Lord returns to judge the quick and the dead.

Remember, too, that Christ was only speaking to Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13: 3)--the founders of His church and witnesses of His resurrection. How did Peter understand the Lord's Olivet discourse? In his first epistle, he writes: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2: 9). Thus Peter is expressly identifying Christ's body as a "generation," which stands distinct from the "generation" of unbelievers. I doubt anyone who reads the Bible without knowledge of the events of the Jewish war would ever arrive at the conclusion that "this generation" meant only those people living at the time.

Of course, we are not denying that some of the events in Christ's Discourse occurred during the lifetime of the apostles. But Christ is talking about "the age" as a whole, one which is characterized by moral depravity and offenses. On the sixth day He came to put away sin, and when the sixth day is over He shall reign with His saints over all the nations of the world. This will be the Millennium, or "restitution of all things" (Acts 3: 21) It is also called the "Dispensation of the fullness of times" (Eph. 1: 10) for the seventh day is the fullness of the week.

This final day is also called "The Day of the Lord." Lactantius writes: "We have often said that lesser things and things of small importance are figures and previous shadowings forth of great things; as this day of ours, which is bounded by the rising and the setting of the sun, is a representation of that great day to which the circuit of a thousand years affixes its limits." (Divine Institutes, VII. xiv). Since Christ rose on the eighth day, the general resurrection must follow the Millennium. Hyper-Preterism breaks this typology, compressing the Millennium into the limits of the sixth day. This restricts Christ's kingdom to a 40 year period!

Obviously, their view is false and heretical. And what must they do to amend their system? They must scrap their erroneous concept of the Olivet Discourse. At the present time, Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father, waiting until His enemies be made His footstool. As we serve Him in Spirit and in truth, let us maintain sound doctrine, and stir up the gift of grace within us, that we may produce fruit fit for the Master's table. If we do so, we shall maintain our rank in the generation of the righteous and the saints of light forever. Amen.

Death Wasn't Destroyed In A.D. 70

Hyper-Preterists always say that death was destroyed in A.D. 70. But what does the destruction of the temple have to do with the abolition of death?

Death was not packaged with the Mosaic economy. It belongs to the Adamic economy. Therefore, the removal of the Mosaic economy has no power to annul death. As the ratification of a covenant cannot make an earlier promise of none effect (Gal. 3: 17), so the converse holds true. The passing away of a later covenant has no power to fulfill an earlier promise.

Now, the promise to annul death was made to Adam in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3: 15). And Paul's statement that death passed upon all men through Adam's transgression (Romans 5: 12 ff.) shows us that the covenant was made with Adam and his seed. A later covenant was made with Abraham and his seed. But the seed, in both cases, is JESUS CHRIST.

JESUS CHRIST is both Son of Man and Son of David. His ministry comprises two economies. Therefore, if His promise to annul death was made to Adam, then the abolition of death is still future. Why? Because not all of Adam's seed was born when the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70!

The only thing that passed away in A.D. 70 was the law of bondage. This was made after the moral law, and was added "because of transgressions" (Gal. 3: 19). It was effectively nailed to the cross (Col. 2: 14), but did not pass away completely until the destruction of the temple. Its abolition was foreshadowed by the rending of the veil of the temple when Christ died on the cross (Matt. 27: 51).

But the abolition of death was also foreshadowed, for "the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt. 27: 52-43).

Christ's sacrificial death generated the power to fulfill all things. But not all things are fulfilled at once. As there was a gradual development of the covenants over a long period of time, so there is a gradual fulfillment. In all cases, the order of fulfillment is reverse to the order of development.

The law of bondage passed away first (in A.D. 70) because it was ratified last. It belonged to a later economy, and so its annulment was earlier. However, death was not annulled at the same time, for it came first. Therefore, its abolition will be last. As the law of bondage embraced the whole of Israel, so the law of death embraces the whole of mankind. This determines the timing of fulfillment.

Some say that the moral law passed away in A.D. 70. But that view is false, for the moral law belongs to the Adamic economy. Note that sin, death, and the law, are all bound up in the Adamic/Genetic economy, and not in the Mosaic economy.

The law is the decalogue, which exists in men's hearts by nature (Romans 2: 15). If by nature, then it was from the beginning. Sin is transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6: 23). So, if you remove one link in this chain, the whole structure falls. Now, if there is no more moral law, there is no more transgression (Romans 4: 15). If there is no more transgression, there is no more condemnation. Which means that all men are saved.

Thus, any placing of the destruction of death in A.D. 70 results in universalism. But the fault comes from wrongly perceiving death as belonging to the Mosaic economy.

Hyper-Preterists Side With Heretics

Here is another typical example of Hyper-Preterist thinking, which I came across the other day: "If the Second Coming of Christ is still in our future, then Jesus lied and both he and Daniel were false prophets! Perhaps, but only if one does not take the plain sense meanings of the Lord Jesus and the prophet Daniel at face value." Notice the arrogant presumption underlying the author's argument--as if disagreement with his subjective view of the "timing texts" would make our Lord a liar.

I could use the same reasoning, and with better effect. "Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. If you believe that 2,000 years of Christian teaching are erroneous, then Jesus Christ is a false prophet!" But, since 2,000 years of Christianity believed His second coming to be future, it is not Christ and Daniel who are false prophets, but newfangled teachers who say that His coming is a past event.

The Lord promised that there would be a resurrection of the dead upon His return. Everyone knows that there was no resurrection in A.D. Therefore, those insane persons who believe in Hyper-Preterism must make the resurrection something "spiritual" or "covenantal." But as I've already shown, that renders the shedding of Christ's blood unnecessary. Also, doesn't it go against the "plain sense" passages of Scripture?

In the first century, the heresy of Gnosticism arose to vex the church. Founded by Simon Magus and his pupil Menander, these perverted teachers all denied the resurrection of the body. They claimed that the soul alone could be saved. Hyper-Preterists agree. So, where does that leave the historic church? In saying that 2,000 years of orthodoxy was false, will H.P.'s also claim that the heretics were correct after all??

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John 2: 19).

Hyper-Preterism Rejects The Cross

All Christians know and love that precious truth that Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10: 45). But in recent years, heretical sects have arisen to challenge the very meaning of our Lord's atonement. I speak primarily of the heresy of Hyper-Preterism, which rejects the cross, essentially denying Christ's vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice.

Hyper-Preterists, in claiming that death is spiritual/covenantal, cannot answer why Jesus Christ died physically on the cross for our sins. They forget that the Lord paid exactly what was required to ransom us from the power of death. Yet, if death is "covenantal," then Jesus did more that was necessary. Therefore, the shedding of His blood was superfluous. This is the very worst kind of blasphemy.

Remember that Christ is the Second Adam. He underwent the same death that passed upon all men through Adam's transgression. If this death is covenantal, then why didn't Jesus undergo covenantal death? For that would have been sufficient. But no. He underwent physical death, bearing our sins in His own body on the tree (1 Peter 2: 24).

It is His blood which cleanses us from sin. For the life is in the blood (Lev. 17: 11). Because Jesus Christ was without sin, He was approved as that perfect Lamb of God, who came to take away the sins of the world. His blood is efficacious in sanctifying us completely. Yet what value does His blood have if death is "covenantal"? Absolutely none at all.

Again, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6: 23); and Jesus Christ paid the wages on Calvary. This identifies "death" as the separation of body and soul. Christ obtained the keys of death and hell (Rev. 1: 18) by enduring the cross and descending into Hades.

Jesus Christ still has the keys. He already used them to release a multitude of captives from Hades (Eph. 5: 8), and to raise the dead from their graves. When many bodies of the saints arose and appeared unto many (Matt. 27: 52-53), their resurrection was an open manifestation of Christ's victory & power over death.

Paul writes, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15: 21-22). Death is temporary punishment brought upon mankind, & its abolition will result in the general resurrection of all men. In this age, temporal death follows temporal life. But in the age to come, life and death are eternal. At that point, it is too late to "repent unto life," for the condition of all men shall be fixed and immutable. If your spiritual condition is changeable, then you are not in the age to come.

Hyper-Preterist definitions of death are heretical in the extreme. In fact, all who preach and teach contrary to the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection are wolves in sheep's clothing. This applies to all "Leeist" conservatives who straddle the fence between Preterism and Futurism, claiming that resurrection occurs upon death. No. The resurrection will abolish death.

Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and a disciple of John the Apostle, wrote: "For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first born of Satan" (Philippians, viii).

In his Pentecostal sermon, Peter, speaking of the risen Christ, said: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that He should be holden of it" (Acts 2: 24). Death had no claims on Christ, because He was without sin. Therefore, He underwent death entirely for us, that we might be released from the power and penalty of sin.

Christ was "delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification" (Romans 4: 25). His resurrection from the grave declared Him to be the Son of God (Romans 1: 4). After His ascension, He sent the Holy Ghost upon His church, to engraft us into His risen life. The Holy Spirit quickens our souls which were dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1). The Spirit will also "quicken our mortal bodies" in the day of resurrection (Romans 8: 11). Do you believe any of this?

It is very easy to make a mental assent to theoretical propositions, and confuse this for the faith which perfects our salvation. But true faith understands the Cross, and the power of the resurrection. It believes that Christ did exactly what was necessary for our atonement. Don't lie to yourself and say that the Cross was a mere ornament and decoration. If you do so, you will only dig a pit deeper for your condemnation.

We are the true apostolic church given to know the Scriptures. We are the true ministers of the New Covenant who preach the pure Gospel of Christ's salvation. Whether you accept a system invented in 1971 or in 2006, you will utterly lose if you attempt to take arms against Christ's elect. Lay down your weapons and submit yourself to Jesus Christ today. Take His yoke upon yourself, and you will find rest for your souls (Matt. 11: 29).

Christians Must Renounce Heresy

As the battle between Hyper-Preterism and Orthodox Christianity continues, we have to pause for a moment and ask ourselves, what are the issues at stake? Is all this strife and division simply a matter of maintaining credit in the eyes of men? --or is there something greater to be gained, which we now overlook? I think the answer is apparent to anyone who has truly learned to "take up his cross" and follow Jesus Christ (Matt. 16: 24).

To take up one's cross does not mean merely to deny pleasures to oneself. In this world there are many things for which men battle and strive daily, and without which they will not do. These fading goods are not at all needful, but have their reference to this life alone. Wealth, social status, and a reputation in the eyes of men, sometimes prevent us from following Christ, and keep us in the land of idolatry from which Abraham was commanded to depart (Gen. 12: 1).

Truly, the elect of God are called to deny themselves a great deal of what most men consider "essential." And this is an important start in learning to follow the Good Shepherd. But that is not primarily what Christ was talking about when He said that we must "take up our crosses." He is teaching that mere renunciation of worldly cares & concerns is not enough. After all, that is just the baggage of life. Our Lord declares that there must be a dying unto self.

What does this imply? Well, it means that we must follow Jesus Christ to Calvary, irrespective of our own personal agendas. Of course, let no one say that we all must partake of His crucifixion, or any kind of martyrdom. While that may be the case, it isn't always necessary. What is necessary, however, is that we stop going in our own directions, and put the cross upon our shoulders. Then, we may follow the footsteps of the Master.

This is what the false teachers of the world have never been able to understand. They think that in bearing their own gospels they are successfully serving Jesus. But they are all deceived. For there is only one Gospel, which "endureth for ever" (1 Peter 1: 25). This is the same message that Jesus Christ and His inspired apostles preached. Anyone who therefore preaches a new gospel is under the curse (Gal. 1: 8, 9).

Now, Hyper-Preterism's "new" Gospel has only been around since 1845. Therefore, it is accursed. When first taught by Robert Townley, churchmen called it the "vilest heresy that ever appeared in Christendom." It's no wonder, then, that it failed to gain any adherents, and remained buried in obscurity for over a hundred years. But it was revived again in 1971, as the Charlie Manson-era's new "take" on Christ's message.

It is the product of men, not of God. Those who preach and follow this new gospel have forgotten what it means to take up the Cross and follow Jesus. Perhaps its main proponents have never truly known what cross-bearing is about. For Hyper-Preterism was invented to maintain the personal agendas of heretics. Like all heresies, Hyper-Preterism does not support the interests of Christianity. It only showers honor upon its teachers, giving them a show of wisdom, whereby they may continue to call themselves the ministers of Christ.

But "such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Cor. 11: 13-15).

What can we gain from this? Someone who preaches a false gospel is not following Christ. Therefore, he has no part in Christ. Will it pay in the long-run? Friends, don't be deceived. Except you take up the cross and follow Christ, you cannot be His disciple (Luke 14: 27). Paul explicitly declares that the deceitful workers will have "an end according to their works."

Are you really sure that by teaching a "new" Gospel you are truly following Christ? And if so, then what is the status of those who believed the Christian message of 1,900 years? It is clear than one party must be right, and the other wrong. Which one will it be? Your answer will reveal which master you serve.

Why not drop these lies and return to the truth? If any man invent a new gospel, he is accursed. There is no such thing as a new Christianity. There is no need for one. There is only one true Gospel. Renounce these delusions, and embrace the truth once more. Lay down your arms, and listen to Jesus. Obey the inward call. Instead of following ravenous wolves, follow the Good Shepherd. For He alone leads the way to eternal life.

What's Up With The Challenge

Due to a recent phone conversation with Jason Bradfield, I have agreed to remove the earlier contents of this post. There will be a discussion between him and myself regarding the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism on Reign of Christ Ministries Live. The date will be Sunday, May 4th.

The Threefold Plan Of Attack

Sometimes folks who leave Hyper-Preterism behind ask themselves whether or not they should engage in an all-out disputation with those still active in the movement. The question is not to be taken lightly, for it involves the propagation of the true faith, and the exposure of error. Nevertheless, sometimes we can get ahead of ourselves. We forget that heresy is a spiritual poison; and if we handle acid without gloves we risk injury. Or, to put it another way, there's an old saying that, "the eyes are bigger than the stomach." Before we take too much on our plates we need to make sure we can eat it all.

I suppose that those formerly tied up in the movement often see a deal of validity in the arguments of the adversary. And this causes many of us to honestly ask whether or not Hyper-Preterism is a heresy "difficult to refute." Well, admittedly it can be difficult under certain circumstances, if we approach it too closely, or lack the proper equipment.

Of course, no one should think that because an argument is subtle & insinuating that it need come up for any serious consideration. It was said that the arguments of the heretic Simon Magus were particularly difficult of refutation. And anyone who reads the "Recognitions of Clement" may follow Peter to Rome where he engages in a series of debates with that Satanic imposter.

But it is true that heresies become more dangerous the harder they are to combat. We thus find ourselves then asking, what are the best tactics for engaging in warfare? Should we meet the enemy open ground? -- or should we gain some higher vantage where we can shoot with greater precision?

As any general fighting a war must map out his campaigns with diligence, taking many factors into consideration, so it is with Christ's church. If we wish to combat a heresy, we must formulate plans of attack. And these plans will minimize injuries sustained by us, and maximize the devastations made in the camp of the enemy.

Under the right circumstances it is quite easy to defeat the Hyper-Preterist heresy. During the past year I've had several lengthy disputations with Hyper-Preterists. I've learned, of course, that few if any are in a position to be amended. However, it is not an impossibility. Nevertheless, I've also found that unless one is a particularly clever debater, approaching their heresy from a purely exegetical level is not a wise idea. I say this because the greatest heretics always plead Scripture in their own defense. And they often do it quite well.

Will we sit down and play chess with the Scriptures? This is exactly what the adversary wants! It's like debating whether or not to meet the enemy on their own turf. Now, if we have the proper weapons, and our morale is high, we may come out of the fray with success.

But nevertheless, is it necessary to make ourselves an open target? Why not adopt a safer method? When the enemy fights, he takes care of his own, keeping shelter under the rain of shrapnel & bullets, digging intricate trenches that he may more effectively gain advantage over ourselves. Shouldn't we do the same? Why not learn from his methods? We need not fight with the same spirit; God forbid! But we ought, in any event, to fight with equal tact.

The enemy always suggests that we "investigate" the Scriptures together. But the last thing we ought to do is to discuss Scripture with heretics. Tertullian once wrote that heretics must not be permitted to argue out of the Scriptures. This is primarily because all heresy springs from self-will. Now if someone's will is perverse, he is not subject to God. Therefore, how can we expect God's word to convict him of the truth? Secondly, as Tertullian stated, the Scriptures belong to the church, and to no one else. Therefore, the church decides when and where the Scriptures get discussed, and with whom.

We as orthodox Christians often forget that the heretics are the enemies who have placed themselves outside of Christ's body. We do not have to make terms with them. Nor do we have to sit down at table with them and answer all of their false and deceitful arguments. It is their business to make terms with us, and to answer our questions.

Nowhere does the Word of God oblige us to parley with heretics, or make terms with those in opposition to the faith. Realizing the position that we occupy is essential toward refuting and combating their heresies with success. Once we come to know that we're in the right and they're in the wrong, refutation becomes a piece of cake.

Exegetical arguments may be useful, but should be treated as a last resort. It is like engaging in hand-to-hand combat. We need not do this right away, or even at all. For as long as we occupy an impregnable position, we have all we need for winning the war. Our weapons don't even have to be the best make. In fact, our enemy may be (and often is) better armed than ourselves. But if we're holding the pass, we can starve them out--weapons or no weapons. So, my first suggestion would be to make a long range attack from a high vantage ground.

And this is where the historical argument comes into play. When our friends the heretics come forward, let them bring their historical evidence with them. The scoffing Romanists used to taunt Protestants, saying, "Where was your church before Luther came along?" In the like manner (and with a better purpose) we may ask, "Where was your 'community' before Robert Townley came along?" As they are unable to answer this, they'll often make a knee-jerk reply, casting doubt on the validity of the historical church. "What is orthodoxy?" they'll say. "The historical church had hundreds of different doctrines!"

Of course this argument is a fallacy. But it is probably just the response that we want them to make. For if they admit there's no such thing as orthodoxy, they must also admit they are not Christians--for they don't believe Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. And unbelievers have no part in the Kingdom of God.

So, they must either assert that their views are orthodox (a sure trap which they want to avoid at all costs) or claim that there is really no such thing as orthodoxy. And in order to lighten the charges of heresy that hang over their heads, they automatically choose the latter option. But, as anyone can plainly see, the position defeats itself, by reducing the Christian religion into a meaningless confusion.

Obviously, the historical position is the best vantage for refuting any kind of heresy. And one can usually defeat their arguments using that alone, making an exegetical discussion unnecessary.

But this is one method. The second phase drives a bit closer to home. And this involves showing these heretics some of the nonsensical and contradictory conclusions caused by their own teachings. This is the method I myself prefer, far above any kind of exegetical discussion. For conflicting conclusions will cancel out heretical presuppositions in a way that is truly incredible. It is this tactic we use when showing that Hyper-Preterism logically leads to Universalism.

Now, the above modes of attack followed out, there is a third way. And, as stated above, that is a vigorous hand-to-hand combat. This is where the exegetical arguments come in. Of course, this method ought to be employed under select circumstances only. For it is sufficient to chip away heretical pretensions, by firstly showing them that their system has no historical support, and next by pointing out the contradictions and logical fallacies in which their theories result.

In certain cases, however, we must go out to grapple in the mud. And only trained soldiers should do this, not all being fitted for the task. If we do so, then, we ought to be in prime condition, in order to win against the enemy. It is not my purpose here to discuss exegetical methods. In fact, if I did so I should be breaking my own rule.

For the time being, let me stick to the historical argument, for I find it more convenient to shoot from the citadel than to engage on the field, or to lock rifles with the foe. So long as we know that there are various methods available, we needn't be discouraged. Let's just remember that it is the enemy's wish to get us to rush from our stronghold that they may take us by stealth. Will we will succumb to their deceptions?

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the contest between orthodox and heretical teachings is very much like a war. There are tactics to be used, methods to be considered. And the successful general will be he who acts both wisely and with foresight. As I've said before, this is a war that is being won by orthodoxy. But as with all war, the cost will be a certain amount of bloodshed.

So, minimizing casualties at this time is essential. Wherefore we must optimize our advantages in every way possible. If we can do this, while sustaining our spirits against the ongoing attack, those numbers will be very much smaller when we eventually pack up our gear to go down into the field.

By that time, the hardest job will be burying the bodies.

Walt Hibbard's Dark Perspective

This bizarre picture is used as a kind of side-banner on Walt Hibbard's website "Preterist Viewpoint." Look carefully, and you'll wonder whether Hibbard is trying to convey some hidden message to those who visit his site. As Hyper-Preterism is a gospel of death, it doesn't surprise me that Hibbard would hunt around for some trashy, Exorcist-style media to promote his views. And you can't deny the ambience fits the theme pretty well. But doesn't it also give us some indication of what the author's tastes are? Anyone who would find affinity with a dead corpse looking up from an open tomb may need serious counseling. Well, perhaps Hibbard wasn't thinking. Then again, perhaps this is just his way of rubbing our noses in it should we be so foolish as to embrace his theology. However, I think we get the message. Anyone who accepts Hyper-Preterism is going to end up with a "viewpoint" like the dude in the picture.

The Meeting of the Minds: A Preterist/Futurist Scenario

Suppose we were all called to a board meeting to decide the future of Christianity. Some of us are Preterists, some Futurists, and the rest are undecided. You and I both know that this latter group will determine the outcome of the whole affair. Now, this board-meeting will be in session for a whole month. During this time, each member called to participate will be allowed to speak at length on why the church should embrace either Preterism or Futurism. After the speakers quit, and on the last day of the meeting, the board will vote on which doctrines will prevail in the Christian world.

Whichever party loses will no longer be permitted to teach its views, and will have to dispose of all its books and learning-materials. If the person be a minister, he won't be allowed to preach in churches until he signs a statement affirming that he adopts the views of the winning party. Any person who preaches a contrary doctrine will be subjected to heavy fines, and incur the permanent loss of his ministerial license. Does all this sound nightmarish? Nevertheless, something similar may happen one day. But the future is in the hands of God.

Now, let us think about this board meeting for a moment. Which party would you belong to? I know right away that I'd join the Futurist faction. Why? Well, because I believe that "The church" has always been since the Lord committed His doctrines to His apostles. Moreover, I believe that the church has always taught the same faith, and that if there is something like "another faith" then there is clearly more than one church. But the Scriptures never speak of two or three or many "churches." Paul says, "There is one faith" and "one body." So, then, that means that the correct system of Christian doctrine will be found throughout all ages of history. Hence there can be no such thing as a "new discovery."

This obviously means that the same message which applied to the saints of Paul's time also applies to Christians of our own day. And this gives us a pretty sure indication of what Christianity is all about. It makes things simple for us, so we don't have to split hairs over such questions as, "Should we still keep the Lord's commands?" - or, "Is there really going to be a future Tribulation, or is the world going to keep on getting sweeter and sweeter as the years roll by?" When such question arise, I and my Futurist board-members will promptly refer to Scripture, and remind folks that "In the last days perilous times will come." That will settle the issue.

But, if others still aren't persuaded, I can refer to the documents of the historic church, and show that throughout all ages of Christianity, the consistent view has been that the world awaits a future Antichrist and future Tribulation. Before coming to the meeting, I'll have my 38-volume set of the Church Fathers shipped down special class, so that I can prove to the undecided members that historical continuity is not a theory, but a fact. If others still don't believe, that's their business. But I intend to show people the truth in any event.

Now my opponents of the Preterist faction will try to prevent me from making this historical disclosure. Their position is that "the truth" is a sort of evolutionary package. Don't get it? Well, the theory is that the historic church had some idea of what they they were teaching, but only Joe Blow from Idaho could bring it to perfection. You know, it's kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. The pieces have been coming together for 2,000 years. Now we almost have the whole picture. Just a few more days, and Billy and his pals will tell us what the truth is all about.

Dear fellow board-members: I ask you to realize the issues that are at stake. Is the same Gospel preached to our fathers and forefathers sufficient for us?-- or must we break down and accept a cessationist theology?

Let the Preterists put their cards on the table, for it's evident that they're not being honest with us. Can they really give the Christian world answers on important questions of doctrine? They claim knowledge, while concealing their ignorance. Well, let them give us some detailed answers. Let them tell us what doctrines apply to us today. And moreover, since they're so good at figuring things out, let them prove everything out of the Scriptures alone.

Only, let each Preterist board member be isolated from all the rest.

Now I hear a cry of "that's not fair!" Well, if not, let me suggest also isolating each Futurist board member. Every member of the meeting must write his answers on a card, which will later be collected by the chairman. Questions will include, "What is the correct doctrine of the resurrection?" -- "Does baptism still apply today?" -- "Will all men be saved?" -- "Is the moral law still in effect?" Of course, this is just a sampling of the many questions which will be asked. But the same questions will have to be answered by all of us--Preterists and Futurists. Then, once the cards have been collected, we'll see which group is more consistent in its answers.

But the Preterists cry again, "That method isn't necessary!" Well, why not? What's wrong with answering a few harmless questions? After all, just visit Billy's website and he'll tell you everything you want to know, furnishing copious proofs to back up his claims. I'm simply asking that the same thing be done once and for all.

Of course, my Futurist colleagues all know why the Preterists want to avoid such a situation. You see, if their inconsistencies are brought to light, the undecided board-members won't accept their views. On the other hand, everyone knows that our views will be consistent all the way through. This could make or break the whole meeting. And so the Prets must think quickly before the move is adopted.

But of course it will all amount to nothing. By this time folks already see that Preterism is weak and futile. They can't win, because they don't even have any solidarity, let alone consistency in belief and doctrine. And this is the same group that quietly suggests to us that we ought to leave the old Christianity behind and embrace their new-age "Gospel?"

The last day of the meeting, after the members cast their votes, the chairman tells us the verdict. "Dear board-members," he announces; "I hereby give the decision of this board concerning the ongoing debate between Preterism and Futurism. But first, I want to thank you all for coming down. Without your patience and determination, Christians would continue forever in strife and division. But the contest is nearing a close. Without any further ado, let me reveal what has been decided."

There is a strained hush in the room. All await the final decision. The creaking of Billy's chair breaks the silence. Mr. Chairmain gives an "ahem!" and shuffles his papers. Then, slowly, he announces, "Ladies and gentlemen, I now give you the verdict. The decision of this board rests in favor of the Futurists!" With that he brings down the gavel, and calls the meeting to an end. And that resolves the issue FOR-EVER!

Now, I know that this is all a fantasy. I know that such a scenario isn't likely to occur anytime soon. I also am quite aware that some may not like how the story ended. Nevertheless, I think we all know the moral of the story. Preterism will never take over Christianity. Not even at an Orwellian board-meeting. So you'd better throw in that towel before you get walloped.

On A War That's Being Won!

If you've been around the theological scene for any amount of time, you'll probably have learned of the long-standing hermeneutical war being waged between "Preterists" and "Futurists." Silly as this sounds to an outsider with no concern in the matter, the warfare in question is a vital one--for its outcome will decide who gets to interpret the Bible.

"Well, what's wrong with that?" you may be asking yourself. "After all, being Protestants, can't we just all get together and drop this divisiveness? Does it really matter how the Bible is interpreted, so long as we agree on the main points of Christianity?" Dear Mr. Compromiser: you have filled your niche in human society since the days of Noah. Your arguments are 'old stuff.' Now please sit down and listen.

If it were a matter of personal judgment, I suppose nobody could complain. But the warfare goes far beyond personal judgment. You see, one party is trying to force its views on another party. One party is assaulting the other, under cover of darkness, trying to overturn centuries of historic witness, and that is not fair-play. The only thing the other party can do is throw up its arms to prevent the glass from flying in its face. It's sort of like that.

But it's like this, too. Suppose you were walking with your children down the street, and a thief with a blackjack popped out of nowhere and struck you on the head, stealing your wallet. Would you resent that? If so, then you may be able to understand what I'm talking about. But enough with the analogies. Let me get down to the solid facts.

What is a Preterist, after all? It is someone who believes in the "past fulfillment of prophecies concerning our Lord's future advent." OK. What is a "Futurist?" Hmm.. Please don't refer to any theological dictionary, because you won't find the term listed anywhere. The phrase "Futurist" was invented by "Preterists" to describe someone who believes that prophecies concerning the Lord's second coming are future. I suppose the correct term would be "Orthodox," but the Prets, for obvious reasons, prefer their own phraseology.

In many sectors, the term "Futurist" has become a name used by Preterists to hurl contempt at those who don't agree with their views. But where is this contempt coming from? The question is not so easy to answer. Historically speaking, Futurists have always recognized elements of "Past Fulfillment" in the New Testament writings. But, as a general rule they have not sought to turn these random elements into a system of theology. That is where Preterists and Futurists have their first disagreement.

The Preterists take the elements of "past fulfillment" and melt them down into a system which usually results in a cessationist theology. Cessationism is a kind of faith that uses rationalistic methods to sift through God's word, that it may construct a new revelation for today's church. The underlying belief is that the New Testament had a primary application to the church of the First Century; and so we must figure out what "applied" to them, and what "applies" to us.

Such a view obviously fails to see the New Testament as a single revelation made to God's church for all ages. And naturally, special hermeneutics must be first devised before Preterists can succeed in "proving" that their views are valid. But because the majority of Christians do not accept their methods, they must go to war. They realize that in order to win they must destroy the methods of their adversaries. Thus they become predators and corsairs who sail upon the high seas of religion, shooting their cannons of doubt at any ship that looks like an easy target.

They become snipers who hide in the trenches and shoot at their foes while the latter are foraging for food, or going about their business. Who dug these trenches in the first place? Well, it was he who felt the need to attack others. It was he who said, "I'm going to war with you, because I want to take over your territory." And that's how it all began.

Sadly, it is these unprovoked attacks that have made many of us take a defensive position against even what is called "orthodox" Preterism. For anyone who offers unprovoked attacks on others shows that he is dangerous and must be guarded against. It is these attacks that have made us dig trenches of our own, and invent weapons to counter the assaults of the adversary. It is no pleasure to have to fight for one's life. But at this point we have no other choice.

Now, once the weapons of war have been gathered by one party, it sets out to attack the other party. And there are various ways of doing this. Outright assault is not always expedient. Infiltration is often much preferred. And this is their fatal error which has placed them in the wrong--morally, if not theologically. For God will not honor anyone who either provokes a war with someone else, or uses dirty tactics to gain a victory.

In the 19th century, college and seminary professors made a sustained attempt to take over the machinery of the orthodox ministry. Liberal heretics arose & outright denied the resurrection of the body, as well as many other doctrines of orthodoxy. Traditional methods of interpretation were substituted for rationalistic ones. The "simplicity of the gospel" was replaced by intellectual legerdemain. For those who occupied the pews, it was a very dark time indeed.

However, within a short number of years, the whole anti-orthodox movement became as the chaff of the threshing-floors. The Fundamental movement, driven by men like D.L. Moody and Charles Spurgeon, showed that pure apostolic Christianity had a power that rationalism lacked. And Christians gladly once more embraced the historic teachings.

And what was the upshot? Well, whatever territory had been taken over by Preterists was vigorously regained by Futurists. This ought to have told the Preterists something. And I suppose many of them were driven backward into their camp to nurse their sick and wounded as best they could. Many of them learned their lesson, albeit some gnashed their teeth in silence...

During the greater part of the twentieth century, the world heard very little from the Preterists. In 1971, however, a man named Max King popped out of obscurity, reviving an extremist heresy which had been concocted one hundred and twenty-five years earlier by a disgruntled former-churchman named Robert Townley.

King became very active within the Preterist movement, and was quickly recognized as the father of a stronger, less pregnable form of Preterism. The ranks, though long frayed and serried, began to thicken, and a harvest of die-harders began to be reaped by his efforts. Assisting him in this movement were others who promoted the publication of the books written by those same liberal professors whose views had been rejected years before.

The movement, however, still gained little force. Then, in the 1990's along came the internet. The efforts spearheaded by King gained a new foothold and began spreading more rapidly. Teachers began to increase with the proliferation of heretical propaganda, and since that time Preterists have made repeated efforts to destroy the foundations of orthodox theology.

Now, dear friend, please don't tell me about "toleration." If someone were in your basement planting dynamite in an attempt to blow up your house, what would you do? I'm sure you would consider him an enemy. Well, that is what's happening today within the Church. There are people trying to destroy its foundations, by changing the very way that the Bible is being read.

And whenever they succeed in doing this, they weaken the faith of others. They throw a cloud over God's word, to prevent the sunshine from striking the Christian's heart. They want to kill hope, they want to kill joy. They want to kill the fruits of the Spirit, and to replace pure Christianity with a diabolical, intellectualized "Gospel," which will give the world a way to come to Christ without having to follow Him and keep His commandments.

That may sound like a strong assessment of the current situation. But I think that's what it is all about. As I've said, this is primarily a war of heremeneutics. These heremeneutics are engineered to produce a particular set of conclusions. And there is no way to get to these conclusions without re-inventing the principles of Bible-interpretation.

However, as long as system lacks spiritual energy and power, it will amount to nothing. Rather, I believe with all my heart that pure Apostolic Christianity is still the answer for today. It will always be the answer. And it is my expectation that the following months will see great victories won on behalf of the Orthodox church. For this is about a war that's being waged. But it's also about a war that's being won. Maranatha!