Considering the Renewed Push Towards Consistent Preterism

With the advent of Gary DeMar of American Vision platforming Kim Burgess there are now quarters of the Church that are being are going all verklempt over DeMar and Burgess’ pushing of Consistent Preterism (also known as Full Preterism, Hyper-Preterism, Eschatological Gnosticism, Hymenaenism, etc.).

By way of introduction it should be noted that while the Church creeds and confessions have seldom spoke on matters eschatological the Apostles Creed (AC) as put Consistent Preterism outside the boundaries of the Christian faith. The AC does so when it puts in the mouths of God’s warrior faithful  that they believe that “Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead,” and further when  we confess in the AC that “I believe in the the resurrection of the body.” If a Consistent Preterist is honest he cannot confess the Apostle’s creed without doing all kinds of mental gymnastics.

Now, as of late some Preterists have taken to calling those who cite the AC as proof of the future 2nd advent of Christ and as proof of the resurrection of the body as “creedalists.” They accuse us of this as if we might think they are accusing us of something that we would recoil at. Indeed, they are spitting this out at us much like a WOKE Karen might wail about us being “racists.” Another example of the Zeus like hurling of a lightning bolt compliment in our direction. We are glad to be labeled as a “creedalist” — especially when coming from a anti-creedalist. We understand perfectly that the Reformed creeds and confessions are perfumed with the odor of Scripture since those who assembled the creeds and confessions only desired to confess that which was consistent with Scripture.

It is also interesting, that the push for Full-Preterism came especially from the Cambellite (Restorationist) movement and to this day many of its advocates remain “Church of Christ” chaps. Now, I’m sure the Church of Christ has many nice people who belong to it, but it has never been acccused of being particularly orthodox by the Reformed faith.

Now, before going into a cursory overview regarding full Preterism we should note that while we can in no way countenance Hymeneanism we do indeed embrace partial Preterism. Further, I personally have profited greatly by reading some of the full Preterists. For example, James Stuart Russell’s, “The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Christ’s Second Coming,” and David Chilton’s “Days of Vengeance,” are both books that have aided me quite a bit. Also, my long relationship and many conversations with Kim Burgess have, on the whole been edifying. However, one has to learn where to get off the train with these Consistent Preterists so one does not fall into their error. The reason that these chaps were so beneficial is that they excelled at exposing how many of the prophecies in the Scripture are past to us, and the reason that aspect is so refreshing is that for the last 165 years or so Church has been awash in the silly futurism of Dispensationalism. The reason that these same chaps are so dangerous is that they absolutized their Preterist eschatology allowing it to drive the train of all their theology. In a fit of irony, in destroying the Hal Lindsey futurism of the Church where all prophecies are yet future they have destroyed themselves by embracing the idea that all the prophies of the Scripture are past and were fulfilled in AD 70.

With the arise of DeMar and Burgess pushing Full Preterism I’ve had to go back and do some quick review as it has been 15 years or so since Tony Pomales came knocking on my study door piling up books for me to read advancing full Preterism while seeking to convert me to Hyper-Preterism. At that time I read probably a dozen to 15 books on the subject on all sides of the subject. I walked away a convinced Partial Preterist while at the same time being decidedly anti-full Preterist. Tony Pomales was disappointed as I was the fish that slipped his net. Sorry Tony.

Having offered all that by way of introduction, let us consider an overview of full Preterism and its attendant problems. Remember, this in no way offers to be exhaustive.

All expressions of Full Preterism impacts the following doctrines;

1.) Denial of a yet future 2nd advent of Christ. The return of Christ spoken of in the NT occurred with Christ’s judgment coming in AD 70.

2.) The great last judgment likewise was fulfilled in AD 70. It is a mistake, per Consistent Preterism, to look for a future great last judgment since that referred to God’s judgment on covenantal Israel which was fulfilled in AD 70 and so did not refer to a yet future to us judgment event where the lambs and the goats will be separated.

3.) The NT language about a future resurrection does NOT refer to a bodily resurrection of the saints who have lived throughout time, but rather the resurrection of the saints refers to a spiritual resurrection. As Consistent Preterist, Kim Burgess, once told me; “The person will be resurrected but not the body.”

As a consequence of this hyper-realized eschatology Consistent Preterists either believe that the world/cosmos will never end or they are agnostic as to the question of the final teleology of all things.

Full Preterists love to camp on Luke 21:22 where Jesus is predicting the destruction of the Temple;

“For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”

The Consistent Preterist will point to this verse and say; “See, the text here explicitly says that “all things which are written may be fulfilled,” and so this text explicitly tells us there is no more to be fulfilled.

The problem with that is that the Full Preterists are forgetting that when Jesus says here “the things are written may be fulfilled,” He is referring what was referring to the things that were written in the Old Testament since the New Testament had not even been inked yet. Therefore, any prophecy that occurred after Jesus spoke this is not part of the things that were written that were fulfilled in AD 70. That in turn means, that anything written prophetically after Jesus spoke these words could yet refer to future matters, like the His second advent, the final judgment, and future resurrection of the saints, that are still yet to happen.

In addition to the paragraph above there is the issue of the word “all” in Luke 22:21. We have to realize that there are times in the NT when the word all does not mean all without exception. For example in Matthew 3:5 the text reads,

“Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him”

Clearly, Matthew is not intending to teach that every single person in Judea went out to Jesus. The word “all” could be working in that same way in Luke 22:21.

Now consider potential implications of this Hyper Preterism. One implication is the possibility that there is no further need for the sacraments. We can deduce that as a possible implication because of the language of I Corinthians 11;

26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Now, if Jesus has come in the way that the Consistent Preterists insists that He has come in AD 70 then I Cor. 11:26 would imply that there is no longer any need to “eat this bread and drink this cup,” because Jesus came in AD 70. Pushed even further, to a logical implication, there would therefore also be no need to gather for Church since the Church’s existence without the sacraments would become very tenuous.

The error of Consistent Preterism in its claim that the saints will not bodily resurrect is perhaps most clearly pointed out in I Cor. 15:20

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

The inspired Apostle speaks of Christ’s resurrection which was/is clearly physical as seen in Jesus urging doubting Thomas to put his finger in his hands and side. Also as seen in Jesus claim that in three days He would raise himself up again should his enemies destroy him (John 2:19). Christ bodily resurrected and Paul in I Cor. 15 says that Christ was the firstfruits of those who are dead (fallen asleep). Now, if a bodily resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of those dead then by necessity the latter fruit following the firstfruit is going to resurrect bodily just as the Lord Christ did. The idea that Christians will have their persons resurrected and not their bodies or that our resurrection is only spiritual is not supported by the weight of Scripture. Indeed even the OT saints figured out what the Hyper Preterists are missing. Hebrews 11 teaches us the way that our Father Abraham reasoned about the sacrifice of Isaac;

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[a] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

Now, to argue that Abraham reasoned that God was going to spiritually raise Isaac and not physically is to reason as only an ideologue can reason.

Upon taking a step back in assessment one might label Hyper Preterism as Eschatological Gnosticism. For the Consistent Preterist there is little to no continuity between our corporeal life now and our life to come. It is all discontinuity. The spiritual is all. The corporeal is nothing.

How serious of an error is Consistent Preterism? Well, I suppose that depends on how much it bleeds into and so alters other theological disciplines. Some of the full Preterists can get pretty whack-a-doodle. At the very least I think we would have to say the best expressions of it are heterodox. Having said that I would be more comfortable with a genuinely Reformed Preterist as a non-voting member than I would be comfortable with a Arminian being a non-voting member. In the end I think we have to take these full Preterists one by one to see exactly where they are not only on eschatology but also on soteriology, ecclesiology, theonomy, hamartiology, epistemology, etc. etc. etc.

Having said all that if you are a laymen you would be wise to drink from the well of Full Preterism with a very very long spoon.

Baxter, McAtee, & Lusk on Final Justification

“To conclude, it is most clear in Scripture, that our Justification, at the great judgment, will be according to our Works, and to what we have done in the Flesh, whether good or evil; which can be no otherwise than as it was the Condition of that Justification.”

Richard Baxter
Puritan Neonomian

Advocating Final Justification

If one talks about “Final Justification” in terms of our works vindicating and agreeing with our forensic Justification which is/was by Christ alone there should be very little problem since Scripture talks about how our works shall follow us (Rev. 14:13). Further “Final Justification might be allowed as long as everyone agrees that all who were forensically justified will be finally justified without exception. However, to talk about a “final Justification” that somehow eclipses our forensic Justification is just Remonstrant trash. The same kind of trash being dished out by Federal Vision today;

“Final justification, however, is according to works. This pole of justification takes into account the entirety of our lives — the obedience we’ve preformed, the sins we’ve committed, the confessions and repentance we’ve done … God’s verdict over us will be in accord with, and therefore in some sense based upon, the life we have lived.”

Rich Lusk 
Federal Vision Remonstrant

As a brief aside here having interacted with the FV crowd quite extensively in days gone by, keep an eye out for the language above where we find the phrase “in some sense.” That is a weasel phrase that can mean just about anything.

Note, that while I do think that ever increasing obedience should be characteristic of the believer I would never think or say to myself that I really believed that my obedience would be connected to any final justification — even if in the way of vindication. Honestly, I know too well of my ongoing battle to put off the old man and put on the new man created in Christ Jesus to ever take hope in my “obedience performed,” for any kind of Justification. It strikes me that only someone not conversant with the depths of their own sin would write the way Lusk does.

We all would do well to remember our confessions;

“Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are also accepted in Him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable, and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”

Westminster Confession of Faith – 16:6

McAtee on Rev. Dewey Roberts’ Complaint About An Aspect of Federal Vision

On the whole I have been quite pleased with Rev. Dewey Roberts’ book “Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision.” I am glad he wrote it. I would recommend that people read it. I am glad I have read it. I do complain vigorously against his chapter wherein he seeks to tie Theonomy and Dr. Bahnsen to Federal Vision. That chapter alone threatens to make people question his integrity on everything else he has written in the book because people are apt to think… “If he got it so wrong on theonomy how can I trust his analysis in the rest of the book?”  I was able to get past that because I know the Institutional Reformed world has been wetting their beds for 40 years now over the issue of theonomy and I can’t expect someone who belongs to that Institutional tribe to not also be a bed wetter on the subject of theonomy. As such, I can denounce that particular chapter while still supporting people reading this volume.

One other problem I have with Rev. Dewey Roberts’ book critiquing Federal Vision is that he is repeatedly complaining about how FV talks about “Covenant Faithfulness being the way to salvation,” as if there is something wrong with the idea of being covenantally faithful as the way to salvation, or that such a notion is a wrong headed idea. Now certainly if one talks about the necessity of covenantal faithfulnes being the way to salvation apart from forensic Justification then there is a parting of the ways with Reformed orthodoxy since to talk like that puts us back in Pelagian-ville. However, once united to Christ it is the case that covenantal faithfulness is the way to salvation.

Rev. Roberts’ complains against FV;

“The doctrine of final Justification is based on the view that the members of the covenant must live in obedience to God’s laws in order to be finally vindicated. Covenant faithfulness is taught as the way to salvation.”

Rev. Dewey Roberts
Historic Christianity & The Federal Vision — pg. 347

Now, Roberts has expressed his concerns that such an arrangement could well make for self-righteousness as people who believe this would be prone to pride because they become convinced that they can fully meet all the law’s stringent requirements. And there is reason, given the old man in all Christians to want to be careful about communicating that error I am sure. However, the opposite problem that Roberts doesn’t speak much to is the antinomian implication found in Roberts seeming advocacy that covenant faithfulness should not be taught as the way to salvation. Do we really want to teach God’s people that covenant faithfulness is not the way to salvation for the forensically justified?

To solve this perhaps we should resurrect the way the Puritans used to speak on obedience. They would make a distinction between “evangelical obedience” which is required of all saints with the result that covenant faithfulness was indeed the way of salvation for those in Christ, and “legal obedience” which was an obedience that was not resting on Christ’s obedience for us and in our stead. That kind of obedience can never be characterized as covenantal obedience and it cannot be required as the way of salvation because it bespeaks reprobation with its implicit belief that one’s obedience is making God a debtor who will owe the obedient one salvation.

Now, it could be the case that Rev. Dewey Roberts would agree wholeheartedly with all this but it seems to me as I read this book the way he complains about FV expecting that covenantal faithfulness as the way to salvation is seen as not wholesome to Rev. Dewey. However, to complain like Rev. Dewey has to my mind suggests that covenantal unfaithfulness is perfectly acceptable as the way to salvation. Now, again, it must be said that covenantal faithfulness as the way to salvation is never going to meet the standard of faithfulness that is required to be characterized as absolutely and fully faithful but at the same time the covenanted who are moving ever upward in terms of faithfulness on their way to salvation by God’s grace alone understand always, in the context of their obedience, that their only hope is nothing less than Jesus and His righteousness. Indeed, it is because they understand that truth that they so earnestly desire to be found to be covenantally faithful on their way to salvation.

I mean we really don’t want to teach, do we, that for the Saints the way to salvation is covenantal unfaithfulness?

The Totalitarian State & Its Wreckage on Community

“The totalitarian state … wages war against the community, because the community is a powerful rival government. It works to weaken the community, the family, the church, and vocation in order to strengthen its own power.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Inst. of Biblical Law Vol. II – p. 82

Whether it is sodomite marriage, the encouragement of trans-genderism the exploitation of our children, or the pushing of pedophilia, you can be sure that the tyrant state is behind it all pushing the destruction of community, family, and church so as to be without competition in the matter of ruling and governance. It is in the interest of the tyrant state to pursue a social order that maximizes atomistic individuality for where there is atomistic individuality there is no other corporate or covenantal entity which can challenge the god-state.

The pushing of multiculturalism fits in this agenda. Multiculturalism destroys previous community boundaries leaving the individual naked to understand and identify themselves only as against the backdrop of the God-State. Likewise postmodernism and post-postmodernism pushes this agenda for if there is no unifying transcendent truth then each man by their autonomous self decides what is truth for them. This destabilizing of the concept of stable transcendent truth thus feeds into the climate that demands the atomistic individual.

If you believe in family, church, and community the State is your enemy. Not only that but everyone who works for the State is your enemy inasmuch as they keep the beast operative.

This problem now though is complicated by the fact that the Church in the West is just as compromised as every other of our Institutions. Further, the clergy, exceptions notwithstanding, are likewise part of the problem and not the cure.

The flip side of the RJR quote is the necessity to build strong families in strong churches and so being a contributing member to strong communities. This of course requires a shared Christian faith as the adhesive that glues the family/church/community together. There will be no resisting the degenerating and dissolving work of the State or Corporate America or the Lugenpress without a shared faith informing these covenant entities. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Either we hang together or we hang separately.”

In the context of all this remember you are going to be a minority. If you want to fight against atomistic-individualism as coming from all comers in the culture you’ll have to determine you’re going to do it as a member of Gideon’s small army. The fact that they we’re outnumbered by the Normies should not concern us and should only serve to strengthen our brotherhood and reputation in the future.

Keep in mind the well-known lines from the rousing St. Crispin’s Day Speech given by the king in Shakespeare’s Henry V;

‘We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.’ 

McAtee Contra Dewey Roberts in Defense of Bahnsen and Theonomy

What then are Bahnsen’s fundamental flaws with respect to the law? His emphasis on being obedient to the law in exhaustive detail brings about a possible conceit that such obedience is actually possible for the believer…. The moral law is the rule for the obedience of the believer, but no Christian can perfectly fulfill it. To the unbeliever, the law is a fearful threat of impending doom.”

Dewey Roberts

Federal Vision and Historic Christianity — p. 196

Roberts really jumps the shark in this chapter titled, “Federal Vision and Theonomy,” from his book “Historic Christianity and the Federal Vision.” In this chapter Roberts seeks to tie Federal Vision to theonomy and in doing so Roberts reveals that he is a clown, who on this subject is NOT to be taken seriously.

Keep in mind that I write all of the below as a adamant opponent of Federal Vision.

Regarding the quote above,

1.) Bahnsen never taught the necessity of obedience to God’s law in exhaustive detail. Bahnsen taught the necessity of obedience to God’s law in exhaustive detail in the context of the law’s general equity. Roberts is wrong.

2.) Would Roberts have clergy so emphasize the inability of God’s people to honor God’s law that it becomes possible that God’s people no longer bother even paying attention to God’s law?

3) Bahnsen never came close to teaching that the believer could keep God’s law in its exhaustive detail so that the believer ended up conceited. Bahnsen understood the necessity of the law to convict and expose as well as the necessity of the law as a guide to life.

4.) If I were to avoid preaching on every subject wherein my hearers might possibly come to carnal conclusion I would never preach a word. The same was true for Bahnsen. What people might possibly do upon Bahnsen emphasizing the truth is not the same as what Bahnsen (or anybody) intends for them to do.

5.) Is Robert’s desire that we preach the law in such a way that all believers say to themselves, “Well, since I can never keep God’s law perfectly therefore I shall never try to keep God’s law.” Clearly Roberts preaching on the law so emphasizes the believers inability to keep the law perfectly that it is possible that some people will hear that they shouldn’t ever bother seeking to honor God’s law.

6.) Bahnsen never denied that to the unbeliever God’s law is a fearful threat of impending doom.

Elsewhere Dewey Roberts writes,

“Second, he (Bahnsen) emphasized obedience to the law so strenuously that he often comes close to the dangerous Pelagian spectrum of errors. Pelagius, as we have seen, taught that mankind could live in obedience to God’s requirements. ‘Theonomy in Christian Ethics’ often makes it seem that the believer can fulfill all of God’s laws. There is very little emphasis on the threatening aspect of God’s law…. Concerning the law, Pelagius taught;

‘But we do praise God as the Author of our righteousness, in that He gave us the law, by the teaching of which we have learned how we ought to live.’

 

Pelagius, likewise, almost completely discounted the threatening aspects of God’s law and saw the law as a gracious act of God which revealed the way the righteous should live.”

Dewey Roberts
Historic Christianity & The Federal Vision — p. 197

1.) Look Dewey, just as a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant so someone is either a Pelagian or he is not a Pelagian. The whole idea that someone is “close to the dangerous spectrum of Pelagian errors” is like a woman being close to being pregnant. Either she is or she isn’t. Either Bahnsen is Pelagian or he is not. If he is not then shut your ignorant trap. I mean if you don’t your close to committing libel. (Did you get the joke in that last sentence Dewey?)

2.) I read Theonomy in Christian Ethics. I did not put it down upon finishing it, thinking, “Wow, now I can go out and perfectly fulfill all God’s laws.” So, I guess we should say Dewey, that when YOU read “Theonomy in Christian Ethics” that YOU wrongly came away from it thinking that it SEEMED to teach that the believer could not fulfill all God’s laws.

3.) Now, about that weasel word “seemed.” Seemed to whom? Seemed to whom by what standard? It seems to me that on this score you’re an idiot. But it only seems that way. In reality it might not be that way.

4.) There is little emphasis on the threatening of God’s law in ‘Theonomy in CHRISTIAN Ethics,’ because Bahnsen was writing to Christians. Christians have already been delivered by Christ’s work on the Cross from the threatening of God’s law and so arise as a people who are zealous for good works. Bahnsen in his book is instructing the believers who are zealous for good works as to what those good works look like. As the Heidelberg Catechism teaches Dewey;

Question 91: But what are good works?

Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith,5 are performed according to the law of God,6 and to His glory;7 and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the institutions of men.8

Tell me Dewey, is the Heidelberg Catechism here, because it does not threaten with the law here, “close to the dangerous spectrum of Pelagian errors?”

5.) I don’t care who talked about “the law as a gracious act of God which revealed the way the righteous should live.” whether it was Pelagius, Socinius, or Fosdick, if they were talking about the law in its usage as a guide to life they were or would have been absolutely correct and for anybody to deny that makes them a full blown antinomian.

6.) And speaking of Antinomianism, honestly Dewey, these criticisms sound to my ear to be the criticisms of someone close to the dangerous spectrum of Tobias Crisp or John Saltmarsh errors.