|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2023 15:38:06 GMT -5
Apostasy (1): Who the Apostate Is
Reformed Free Publishing Association
October 09, 2023
Image: Turnaway Resisting Evangelist, Pilgrim's Progress illustration by Frederick Barnard (1892)
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)
Introduction
The text of Hebrews 10:26-29 is a warning against apostasy. In fact, the epistle to the Hebrews contains many pointed warnings against apostasy. Indeed, it contains some of the most chilling, most frightening, and most sobering passages of the New Testament on the subject of apostasy. In a number of blog posts I intend to explain and apply these warnings against apostasy.
Apostasy is the worst sin of which a person can be guilty. Apostasy is not a careless wandering into sin. Apostasy is not the yielding to a particular temptation, whether lying, stealing, or even adultery or murder. Apostasy is not even a prolonged walking in a particular sin for a time. David did not commit apostasy when he sinned with Bathsheba and when he murdered Uriah the Hittite. Samson did not commit apostasy when he betrayed his secret to Delilah and allowed her to cut off his hair. Not even Peter committed apostasy when he denied Jesus Christ three times in the courtyard of Caiaphas the high priest.
In verse 26 we read of one who “sins willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth.” In verse 29 we read of one who “treads underfoot the Son of God,” who “counts the blood of Jesus as an unholy thing,” and who “does despite to the Spirit of grace.” Those sins are much more serious than lying, theft, adultery, or murder. Those sins are the essence of fearful apostasy.
WHO THE APOSTATE IS
Definition: “Apostasy is the willful, persistent, final departure from the truth, and therefore from Christ and his church, by one who professed to know and believe the truth.”
First, apostasy is always willful. In Greek that word “willfully” is first in the sentence for emphasis: “If willfully we sin after we have received the knowledge of the truth” (v. 26). No one accidentally apostatizes. Apostasy is deliberate: there is always a conscious decision by the apostate to depart from the truth; there is always a conscious decision by the apostate to reject Jesus Christ.
Second, apostasy is always persistent. That comes out in the Greek grammar of the text also, where the verb in verse 26 is in the present tense. “If willfully we go on sinning” or “if willfully we keep on sinning” is the idea. The apostate persists in his sin: he refuses to repent despite warnings, despite admonitions, and despite pleadings. Fellow church members beg the apostate to reconsider, but he refuses to listen. The pastor or the elders seek to contact the apostate: either he rejects their calls and visits, or he listens for a while, and then hardens his heart against their counsel. There is, therefore, because of his persistence no remedy for the apostate. He rejects the only possible remedy, making his case hopeless. No other sin is hopeless except this one. “There remaineth,” verse 26 warns, “no more sacrifice for sins.” Of course, there is no more sacrifice for sins: if the apostate rejects the cross of Christ, there is nowhere else where he can find the pardon of sin.
Take note that there is always pardon of sin for the sinner who repents. But the apostate does not repent: he cannot repent and he cannot be convinced to repent. Whatever sin a Christian might fall into, he will find forgiveness in the way of repentance. A Christian might lie, steal, commit adultery, or even commit murder: he might even be imprisoned for his crime. Even in prison there is forgiveness of sins for the truly penitent sinner.
Consider king Manasseh, who was the son of godly king Hezekiah. Manasseh worshiped a multitude of idols; Manasseh killed the prophets of God; Manasseh sacrificed his children to idols; Manasseh filled Jerusalem with idols and with blood. If anyone seemed to be an apostate, surely it was Manasseh. Yet we read, after Manasseh was carried off into a Babylonian prison, “And when he was in affliction, he besought the LORD his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And prayed unto him, and he was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD, he was God” (2 Chron. 33:12-13). Manasseh repented after a very deep fall into sin, but the apostate never repents.
“If we confess our sins—the apostate never confesses his sins after he departs from the truth—he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). If Manasseh could find forgiveness in the way of repentance, so do we. The apostate does not, for he never repents. God does not forgive the apostate who never repents. Jesus’ blood cleanses us from all sin, but the apostate rejects Christ’s blood: for him there is no remedy. “There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” (v. 26).
Third, apostasy is always final. It is possible to depart from the truth and from godliness for a time. Reformed churches have a form called “The Form for the Re-admittance of Excommunicated Persons” for that reason. There are prodigal sons and prodigal daughters who dwell in a far country with the swine for a time. They break the hearts of their fathers, mothers, and pastor; they grieve the elders and fellow church members. But they do return and great is the joy among the angels and in the church. The apostate never returns: he never repents. He is hardened in his sin, he goes on in his sin, and he perishes in his sin. In Hebrews 6:4-6 we read that it “impossible” to “renew” the apostate “again unto repentance.” He cannot repent, nobody can persuade him to repent, and God does not grant him repentance (2 Tim. 2:25). Having become ensnared in the snare of the devil, the apostate’s case is hopeless, and God does not recover him. Having rejected the only way of salvation, the apostate persists in his iniquity and perishes forever.
Fourth, and finally, apostasy is always departure from the truth by one who knows the truth. The apostate is always knowledgeable: he knows the truth, at least intellectually. He has read and studied the Scriptures. He has heard sermons—many sermons. He may even have preached sermons before his apostasy. He has sat through Bible studies and catechism lessons—many such studies and lessons. He may even have led such Bible studies and taught catechism lessons. He has read good literature. He has become proficient in the truth, even to the point of witnessing to the truth. Often he has made public confession and has been baptized. He may even have partaken of the Lord’s Supper and become an officebearer. Often such an apostate was born into the church and grew up in the church. Other apostates claimed to be converted later in life, but they reject the truth that they once confessed.
This comes out in verse 26: “If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth.” The apostate has knowledge of the truth. The apostate knows who the true God is, he knows who Jesus is, he knows who the Holy Spirit is, and he knows what salvation is. The apostate knows about the cross, the resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins; he is familiar with justification and sanctification. In a sense, the apostate has received these things, not with true faith, but at least with the intellect. The other members of the church have no reason to question the apostate’s commitment to the truth until he reveals his apostasy. When he reveals his apostasy, the members of the church are usually shocked and dismayed. They did not see it coming.
This means that a Muslim, who does not know what Christianity is, is not an apostate. He is an unbeliever, but he is not an apostate. An atheist who rejects Christianity, but who has not heard the true gospel, is not an apostate. He is an unbeliever, but he is not an apostate. An apostate is always an ex-Christian. He tried Christianity for a time. He came very close to the Christian faith. He was heavily involved in Christianity. He professed to believe it—he even seemed to believe it—but he never truly believed in Jesus Christ from the heart. He was a hypocrite, who, when he apostatized, made his hypocrisy and unbelief clear. “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 made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:19).
The immediate context in the epistle to the Hebrews is apostasy from the Christian faith by Hebrew Christians. The Hebrew Christians, Christians who had come out of Judaism in order to follow Jesus Christ, were sorely tempted to return to Judaism. The epistle was written to them to show them the superiority of Jesus Christ and to warn them not to reject Christ for unbelieving Judaism. If the Hebrew Christians want to return to the synagogues, the temple, and the way of life that they enjoyed as Jews, they must repudiate faith in Jesus Christ. They must denounce Christ as a false Messiah, as a cursed false prophet. If they did that, they would be received into the Jewish community: their friends and family would accept them again; and persecution would cease. That was the temptation of apostasy: a very sore temptation to the Hebrew Christians.
The modern equivalent is apostasy from true Christianity to the false church or the ungodly world. If a Reformed Christian returns to Romanism, he is an apostate: he rejects Christ’s finished work for the worthless Mass; he repudiates the gospel of grace for a religion of merit; he abandons the true worship of God for idolatry and superstition; he rejects the Word of God and the preaching of the truth for the traditions of men. Now be careful, if a member of the Protestant Reformed Churches leaves the denomination, that does not necessarily constitute apostasy. The Protestant Reformed Churches are not the only true churches in the world. Departure from our churches in order to become a member of another faithful church—and such do exist—is not departure “from the truth.” We have never taught, although sometimes sadly we leave that impression by our attitudes, that those who leave our churches are apostates. In the days of the apostles, departure from the church was apostasy; in our day, departure from one church to join another faithful church is not. At the same time, doctrinal precision is important: the question must be asked by one contemplating a change of church, “Is the preaching in the church that I plan to join faithful to the Scriptures; are the sacraments administered purely there; and is church discipline exercised faithfully there?”
In addition, if a Reformed Christian returns to the world, he is an apostate: he abandons a godly life in devotion to Christ for a life of sinful pleasures; he rejects Christ for the sake of family, friends, and promotion in the world. Demas was such an apostate: “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:10). He sinned after he received the knowledge of the truth.
__________
Martyn McGeown is a pastor in the Protestant Reformed Churches. He is also the editor of the RFPA blog and the author of multiple RFPA publications.
You can read more from Rev McGeown in our newest release, Believing and Confessing: 365 Meditations on the Belgic Confession.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2023 15:40:50 GMT -5
The Standard Bearer: Loving Service of the Church
Home News The Standard Bearer: Loving Service of the Church
The Standard Bearer: Loving Service of the Church
The Standard Bearer: Loving Service of the Church
Reformed Free Publishing Association
September 22, 2023
Image: Table of contents for The Standard Bearer's Vol 100, No.1
The following Editorial was written by Prof. Barrett Gritters for The Standard Bearer Vol 100, No. 1 (October 1, 2023).
___________
The Standard Bearer exists for Christ’s church. Our writers labor for the magazine because they love the church too. You read our magazine most likely because you also love the church.
Exactly 99 years ago (October 1, 1924), the men of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) began production of the Standard Bearer, because they loved the church, which they saw in mortal danger. Love drove them to organize the association—in the service of, but ‘free’ from official oversight of, the church. The magazine would be written for no other reason than the wellbeing of their church. Love for the church would not allow the men quickly to leave her. They would work until their writings, in God’s good pleasure, either corrected their mother or (the last thing they wanted) brought about their ouster from her fellowship.
If you peruse the first volumes of the Standard Bearer, you will see that.(1) In 1924 love manifested itself in warning the church of her departure from Scripture’s teaching of sovereign grace, in calling the church to hold fast the traditions of the Reformed faith and, later, in calling to separate from her for her errors. “The Latest Ecclesiastical Strife,” “Striving Against Your Mother,” “Misinformation from Abroad,” “A ‘Christian’ Church to Weep Over,” were some of the articles’ titles in the early years.(2) Rev. Hoeksema began a long series of articles about the false teachings in the “Three Points of Common Grace.” Rev. Ophoff wrote “A Declaration” explaining why he also would be part of the staff. Others added their voices. Soon it would become obvious to the writers that the church they loved would not be corrected. Yet the news article inviting to the “Field Day” (1925) still said, “...of the Protesting Christian Reformed Churches.” The writers loved their church.
___________
I trust that I speak for all the writers in 2023 when I say that we write because we have the same love for our Lord’s precious church. We love the PRCA. We love the PRCA’s sisters and friends. We love the true church in all the world. Therefore, we write. Still today, although the RFPA is a parachurch organization (alongside the church, but not the church) the RFPA’s goal is the edification of the church and never merely individual Christians apart from the church’s institute.
It is good to be clear about what we mean. We love the church, our church, not just the concept church. There is a difference. For example, it is possible (but wrong) to love the concept ‘covenant,’ which love then is expressed by writing about, explaining, and defending the truth of the covenant but not by living the life of the covenant with God and God’s people. Likewise, it is possible to love the concept ‘church’ without loving any particular church or churches by living in them and doing them good. Standard Bearer writers love the church, live in and for her, and write with the aim of building her up—the PRCA and other churches worldwide.
___________
I love my own denomination, the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, the denomination of which I am a member and servant as a seminary professor. I love Hudsonville (MI) PRCA, the congregation where my family’s membership has been for almost 30 years. I love all the congregations, large and small, of the PRCA. I write for them. And not only for them, but for all those who read the magazine and love Christ’s church in the PRCA and elsewhere. May God use our magazine for the good of all of you.
Why I love the church can be explained by many things. Probably the best explanation is that God used my Christian upbringing in a very small church in California to instill it in me. In the church, among the saints, our family blessed Jehovah. From my youth, although my parents never spoke the words, “You must love the church,” their life did. In 1948, my father moved from Minnesota to Redlands at age 19 to teach in the PRC parents’ small Christian school, until they lost the school in the schism of 1953. Shortly thereafter, he often served on consistory, reading sermons in our vacancies and teaching catechism. He served on the school’s board. He never called our attention to it, but we noticed it. With all the other men of the congregation, he gave how many Saturdays of donated labor to construct a new sanctuary; and that, only shortly after they did the same thing to build the Christian school—with their own hands. Probably the most striking testimony of that love to a young man growing up with five siblings in a small house on a 50-foot lot was when Dad declined promotions to more lucrative positions in the State Highway department. Why? “It would re quire us to move to Sacramento, and Redlands is where our church is.” Dad and Mom loved the church. What young person would not notice this display of love?
I love the church because she is my mother. God is my Father, and His church is my mother, as Christians have said since Augustine. The church’s preaching nurtured me in the faith, even when I did not always listen or appreciate it. In catechism, she taught me the wondrous love of Jesus. She searched me out when I wandered. In her bosom was nurtured the wife the Lord provided me, and then our children, and now our grandchildren. I love her and all her members and officebearers.
I love her because Jesus loves her and commands me to have the same affection and offer the same sacrifice for her good. “The church He loveth well.” Thus, so do I.
___________
There are plenty of reasons not to love the church. That is, with a certain flawed idea of love as a warm feeling.
With that definition, there are good reasons for my wife not to love me, too. Thankfully, Christian wives look beyond our weaknesses and sins to the work of Christ in us. They also hear Christ’s call to love their husbands, not by always having warm feelings toward them, but by seeking their good and sacrificing themselves to accomplish their good. Whether I have a warm feeling toward the church depends on what aspect of the church I am looking at. With some things I am disgusted. With others I am frustrated. At times, assemblies’ decisions disturb me. The behavior of some members is discouraging to say the least. And while the fault in these attitudes is mine, the sins and weaknesses are real. But I want to look beyond the church’s weaknesses, see what God sees in the church, and love her not first by feeling warm toward her but by giving myself to her—a flawed and at times very weak body.
The church is imperfect. Officebearers are but men. Assemblies make mistakes. Members are sinful.
But our sinful natures feed on these thoughts. So we let them grow into bitterness against the church, into hypercritical attitudes that bleed down into our children. If we are not careful, soon we entertain thoughts about leaving her for another. Not because the new church has so many less flaws, but because of disgust with the church God put us in. Such is our disgust that we may be willing to swallow camels while we strain out other evils, even if they are larger than gnats. Maybe we leave the church altogether.
We can be helped by Calvin, who learned from Augustine, who learned from Cyprian, all of whom spoke from the experience of living in a sinful church. Here’s Calvin:
…Augustine argues against the Donatists: that individual laymen, if they see vices not diligently enough corrected by the council of elders, should not therefore at once depart from the church; and that the pastors themselves, if they cannot cleanse all that needs correction according to their hearts’ desire, should not for that reason resign their ministry or disturb the entire church with unaccustomed rigor....“He who diligently ponders these things,” Augustine says, “neither neglects severe discipline in the maintenance of unity, nor by intemperate correction breaks the bond of fellowship.” ...From this point he [Augustine] concludes with Cyprian: “Let a man mercifully correct what he can; let him patiently bear what he cannot correct, and groan and sorrow over it with love.”(3)
___________
I love the church in the way a man loves his family. At times, he sees so many weaknesses and shortcomings that he may be tempted to reject them. But he looks beyond their flaws, many of which are his own, and loves them with the genuine love of God. He wants their good; he plans to carry out their good; and, fighting against every bad feeling he has towards them, he dies doing them good because God calls him to do so.
I love the church. With God’s grace, I look beyond the weaknesses of the members, the flaws of the office bearers, the mistakes of the assemblies—most of which I find in myself and perhaps are even because of me—and ask some questions: Does my church manifest the marks of the true church? Is the pure gospel preached here? Are the sacraments properly administered here? Is Christian discipline exercised in punishing of sin? They are. In my church and churches, do I find members with the marks of Christians: they believe Christ, avoid sin, follow the right, love God and their neighbor, turn neither to the right nor left, crucify their flesh with its works, and fight against their remaining infirmities, taking refuge in the blood, death, passion, and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ? I do. And I love them.
The Standard Bearer exists for the sake of the church and her members.
___________
There are many things a magazine can do for the church, which this magazine wishes to do until the Lord returns. For old and young. In the service of orthodox teaching, sound church government, pure and spiritual worship, holiness of life, the church’s witness to the world, and her hope for the world to come. Week after week, even when discouragements pile up. Year after year, when we pray the Lord speed His return. We will write when we are crying, “O wherefore hast Thou cast us off, O God, our God of old?” And we will pray, when we see the ruin foes have wrought, “Remember Thy inheritance, Thy church, redeemed by grace; Remember Zion’s mount profaned, Thy ancient dwellingplace.”
By God’s grace, and with the love of Jesus Christ in our hearts, the Standard Bearer authors will continue to write for your good. Even when it is “not songs but sighs” that belong to us, we will write.
May our good God keep the PRCA, and all other true churches of Christ in the world.
We love you. But more importantly: “God thy Maker loves thee well; He has chosen Thee, most precious, He delights in Thee to dwell…” (Psalter #237). I love the church.
(1) The RFPA is getting closer, but is still 15 volume years away from making available all the old issues with the click of a button. As of this writing, you can find online the issues from the present back to 1938, but not earlier. Yet.
(2) Some are my translations of the Dutch.
(3) Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (4.12.11). Ford L. Battles, ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1238–39.
___________
Interested in the Standard Bearer? Click here or the image below to subscribe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 6, 2023 12:09:40 GMT -5
How much more will this be the case with anyone who by wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becomes defiled. He will go away into everlasting fire, and so will everyone that listens to him. - Ignatius
A novel strain of Gnosticism, termed Hyper-preterism, is infiltrating today's Christian community. This movement revived outdated doctrines previously denounced as heretical by various historical church councils and confessions. This contemporary eschatological theory is characterized by its radical denial of four essential Christian beliefs: (1) the denial of a physical resurrection; (2) the rejection of Christ's physical return; (3) the negation of a final judgment; and (4) the dismissal of an ultimate culmination of history.
Some of these Gnostic repudiations have roots dating back to the first century. The Sadducees, for instance, espoused the belief that "there is no resurrection" (Matthew 22:23), while others propagated ideas that undermined faith, asserting that "the resurrection has already happened." (2 Timothy 2:18). Various unorthodox systems, including Socinians, Arians (modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses), liberalism, and the contemporary mystics of New Age philosophy, have also embraced these Gnostic teachings, particularly the concept of a non-bodily resurrection.
In addressing the church of his time, the apostle Peter issued a warning about the perils of destructive doctrines and their impact on the visible church. He stated, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3). It is the responsibility of every Christian, particularly the pastors of the church of Jesus Christ, to safeguard the flock against heresies that blaspheme the truth of Scripture.
In the words of Paul: “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”
Ecclesiastical authorities must avert their attention from individuals who distort the Gospel of Jesus Christ and propagate erroneous doctrines that undermine the foundational tenets of the Christian faith.
Two specific issues raised by the Hyper-preterists require addressing before delving into a Scriptural rebuttal against this deviant teaching. The first pertains to the doctrine of sola Scriptura, while the second involves eschatological councils.
Sola Scriptura
The primary concern revolves around Hyper-preterism's claim regarding sola Scriptura (the principle of Scripture alone). Hyper-preterists maintain their commitment to sola Scriptura while simultaneously arguing that other Evangelicals do not share the same commitment. They assert that, in contrast to relying on Scripture, other Evangelicals depend on interpretative frameworks presented in confessions and creeds upheld by the church for more than two millennia. This is a false dilemma.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1
Sola Scriptura asserts that the fundamental and ultimate standard for all matters of doctrine, encompassing every aspect of life, is the Word of God—specifically, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. Scripture stands as the sole infallible authority, holding a monopoly on truth. This perspective aligns with the declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
However, what is often misunderstood is that the doctrine of sola Scriptura accepts the utilization of biblically grounded Christian tradition, as evident in the creedal statements of the church of Christ. Creedal theology has consistently been viewed as a secondary norm in theology. It's crucial to note that during the Reformation, the debate about tradition was not centered on established, biblically-based creedal theology. Instead, the contention was with the "extra-Biblical tradition" established by the Roman Catholic Church, which lacked a Scriptural foundation and was consequently deemed unacceptable. The Reformers asserted the absolute authority of Scripture while acknowledging the value of established, biblically based creedal doctrines formulated by the church since its early post-apostolic days. They recognized the benefit of such creedal teachings for (1) instructing the church in the truth of Scripture and (2) defending the faith against non-Scriptural truth claims.
Creedal theology is a valuable tool for teaching and defending the Christian faith. The creeds and confessions, functioning as subordinate standards, enable the church, described as "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), to articulate biblical doctrine and better preserve it. The Reformers and Christianity, in general, clearly distinguished between the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God and the creedal theology systematically developed by the church. The creeds and confessions of the church hold authority to the extent that they align with the teachings of the Bible.
The present writer considers the Westminster Confession of Faith to be the most exemplary representation of Biblical theology in contemporary Christendom. According to the confession, its teachings should be understood in the context of Scripture.
X. The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.2
Historic councils and confessions are products of Biblical exegesis. Whether we agree with the conclusions drawn is a matter of personal judgment. However, labeling confessional declarations as "hyper-confessionalism," as some Hyper-preterists have done, is misleading. The authority of church creeds and confessions as subordinate standards lies in their Scriptural foundation. These documents result from the theological acumen of some of the most brilliant minds ever raised up in the church by God.
The three significant confessions of the 17th century – the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Congregational Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession (1689) – serve as the pinnacle creeds of a millennium and a half of doctrinal work in the church. They exhibit a remarkable harmony of doctrine, with approximately ninety percent alignment in their teachings. It is crucial to approach the rejection of such creeds with caution, considering they reflect the insights of numerous great minds bestowed by God upon the church.
Additionally, the teachings of eminent theological scholars throughout the history of the church, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Francis Turretin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, and W. G. T. Shedd, should be taken into account. These individuals, alongside numerous other scholars and ministers who adhered to orthodox church teachings, including their views on eschatology, are the foundational figures in the Christian faith. Hebrews 13:7 urges believers to remember and follow those who have spoken the word of God, considering the outcome of their conduct. Proverbs 22:28 warns against removing the ancient landmarks set by our fathers.
When faced with the multitude of faithful confessions and individual Christian theologians who have all affirmed the fundamental orthodox teachings of the church, it is evident that denying or disregarding the coherence and consistency built over centuries of doctrinal belief requires considerable arrogance, to say the least.
Hyper-preterists assert that it is only through their recent development of eschatological interpretation that believers have finally unraveled the supposed errors in the church's historic creeds, liberating Christians from doctrines that have remained undisputed in the body of Christ for centuries. According to them, only now can these teachings about the resurrection, Christ's return, the final judgment, and the culmination of history be truly understood.
This perspective places individuals at the forefront of determining doctrinal orthodoxy. Instead of the church being "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), this form of individualistic authority, which may explain why many Hyper-preterists are not members of the visible church of Jesus Christ, promotes the autonomy of the individual and diminishes the authority that Christ has bestowed upon the church. As Proverbs 14:12 warns, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."
The Lack of an Eschatological Council
The second concern related to Hyper-preterism involves the assertion that there has never been a council specifically addressing eschatology. According to this perspective, it is argued that it is now necessary to assemble a council to address this issue. Some proponents of this idea point to Dr. Gordon Clark and Louis Berkhof as theologians who supported the notion of convening such a council. However, in reality, neither Clark nor Berkhof advocated for convening a council to address eschatology. Instead, their position was that a council or assembly should have been called to establish which millennial view aligns with Biblical teachings more clearly. Gordon Clark expressed this viewpoint in his writings:
The [Westminster] Confession has very little to say on Christ’s return. Its last chapter gives a relatively full account of the judgment, but only in the last few phrases of section 3 is Christ’s return mentioned at all. Yet it would seem that there is more material in the New Testament on this subject… Historically the lack of balance is understandable; but theologically it is unfortunate. Because the struggle with Rome centered on justification by faith and the sole authority of the Bible, the order of events concomitant with the Second Advent was not a matter of discussion… For the last hundred years, however, the details of eschatology have evoked a great deal of interest.3
Clark focused on the question of whether an individual should subscribe to a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective in eschatology. In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Clark affirmed the shared distinctives among all these millennial views, including (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history.
Louis Berkhof expressed the same concern in his Systematic Theology:
Speaking generally, it may be said that Christianity never forgot the glorious predictions respecting its future and the future of the individual Christian. Neither the individual Christian nor the church could avoid thinking about these and finding comfort in them. Sometimes, however, the church, borne down with cares of life, or entangled in its pleasures, thought little of the future. Moreover, it happened repeatedly that at one time it would think more of this, and at another time, more of that particular element of its future hope. In days of defection the Christian hope sometimes grew dim and uncertain, but it never died out altogether. At the same time it must be said that there has never been a period in the history of the Christian church, in which eschatology was the center of Christian thought. The other loci of Dogmatics have each had their time of special development, but this cannot be said of eschatology.
The Reformation adopted what the early church taught respecting the return of Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, and eternal life, and brushed aside the crass form of Chiliasm which appeared in the Anabaptist sects… It can hardly be said that the Reformation did much for the development of eschatology.4
Berkhof further affirmed (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history. Like Clark, Berkhof expressed regret that the church had made minimal efforts to resolve the question of which millennial view aligns most closely with Biblical teachings and the specifics of the end times.
Interestingly, a question was posed in a conversation with a Hyper-preterist: "If we were to convene an assembly or council today, would you accept its findings?" The response was revealing: "Most likely not!" Hyper-preterists recognize that the Christian church would affirm the four eschatological doctrines they reject. None of the Christian church councils in history have supported the views embraced by Hyper-preterists.
Hyper-preterism and the Charge of Heresy
A key issue in the Hyper-preterist controversy revolves around the accusation of heresy. The question of whether Hyperpreterists can be classified as heretics requires careful consideration. Often, the charge of heresy has been applied indiscriminately. Technically, theological disputes have four primary classifications regarding "false doctrine." The first category is "errant theology," signifying a perspective that doesn't deviate from a particular church or denomination's accepted (orthodox) teachings. Hyper-preterism falls clearly into the realm of errant theology. The second category is "heresy," denoting a teaching that advocates a doctrine contrary to an accepted creedal position. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism is deemed "heretical." Samuel Frost5, once a well-educated spokesperson for the Hyperpreterist movement, acknowledged this classification:
Preterism, the word I chose to call this doctrine and movement, is a risky venture. Two millennia of church tradition on the Second Coming of Christ is now seen as an error. This was not a minor theological dispute, either. The Second Coming of Christ was and is a major tenet of Christianity…. Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of A.D. 66-70. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and the Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years. This is a contradiction to Christian orthodoxy and its Creeds, Councils and all the Reformed, Baptist, and Methodist Standards… It advocates as it starting point that Jesus returned in that "generation" and that "all things" were fulfilled in that generation… This has caused, to use another postmodern term, a "paradigm shift" in our understanding of eschatology… The point I want to make is that prior to our shift to preterism, were we in error when we proclaimed the Second Coming of Christ as yet future? Were we in error when we stated that God, the Bible and the Spirit teaches that "He shall come again?" Were we in error when we took, what we now believe to be a false hope [authors note: he means Christ coming again at the end of time], this view and said that "this is what God says: He shall come again!"? We now believe that God does not "say" that. The Bible does not teach that… I am a [hyper] preterist. I believe in doctrinal changes. I believe in paradigm shifts. I believe in following the truth against the Majority. I am a "heretic" according to the Council of Nicea and the Westminster Confession of Faith. So be it.6
Reflecting on Mr. Frost's concise expression in the previous quote is worthwhile. Firstly, he acknowledged that Hyperpreterism is a "risky venture," fully aware that he embraced a doctrine that has been condemned by the church over the course of its 2000-year history. What was consistently upheld as a crucial element of the Christian faith was being contradicted and dismissed as a valid doctrine of Scripture. Secondly, he underscored that this denial was not a minor theological matter but rather a rejection of the Second Coming of Christ, which he recognized as "a major tenet of Christianity." Thirdly, what was being denied encompassed the Second Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the significant judgment expected at the end of the age. He admitted that this contradicted Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the Christian church's councils, creeds, and confessional standards. Fifthly, he acknowledged the gravity of this denial and understood that considering the church's doctrine on eschatological matters, the historical Christian church is justified in labeling Hyper-preterists as "heretics." Sixthly, this denial was rooted in a paradigm shift in hermeneutical interpretation. Lastly, he concluded by openly admitting to being a "heretic" according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and he embraced the term "heretic" as a badge of honor when he said, "so be it."
Such assertions should be deeply troubling to any professing Christian. When a self-proclaimed believer openly acknowledges being a "heretic" and willingly accepts the consequences of adhering to an unorthodox doctrine without reservation, it raises questions about the authenticity of their profession of faith. In actuality, not only was Mr. Frost a heretic according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, but also of the Apostles’ Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The latter Creed begins by stating: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal Christian] faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." The Creed concludes with the affirmation: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." Concerning the view of the second advent of Christ, the Athanasian Creed asserts: "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." Perhaps the reason Mr. Frost omitted mentioning the Athanasian Creed when highlighting his divergence from historical Christianity is that he would then be admitting not just to being a "heretic" but a "damnable heretic."
The third classification is "damnable heresy." Damnable heresy denotes a belief so contrary to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, such as justification by works, that persisting in such a belief would lead to damnation. The fourth category is "apostasy," defined as a false teaching added to the essentials of the Christian faith to the extent that it misguides and alters these essential doctrines. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism can be considered apostate.
Concluding Remarks
By rejecting the four fundamental eschatological tenets of the Christian faith—namely, the physical resurrection of the body, the physical return of Christ, the final judgment, and the end of history—Hyper-preterism has embraced a new form of Gnosticism. This Gnosticism introduces a novel paradigm into its hermeneutical system, with its eschatological dogma serving as a template to reshape the entirety of its theological teachings. In this errant framework, every aspect of thought is governed by its eschatological perspective, asserting that the second and sole coming of Jesus Christ occurred in A.D. 70. This belief necessitates the redefinition or recasting of other major doctrines, leading further away from orthodox teachings.
An instance of this is seen in Hyper-preterists rejecting the concept of "original sin" as the cause of Adam's physical death, contending that the consequences of the "fall of man" were solely spiritual, not physical. Some Hyper-preterists go further to argue that a visible church is no longer necessary. If there's no need for a visible church, the role of church officers (preachers/teachers) becomes obsolete, as do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. This perspective arises from believing that Christ's fulfillment occurred in A.D. 70, rendering everything complete. Additionally, certain Hyper-preterists deny the ongoing relevance of the Law of God (the Ten Commandments) and, in the realm of soteriology, adopt a form of universalism. These trends within the Hyper-preterist movement are considered highly perilous and may border on the classification of "damnable heresy."
The Hyper-preterist movement is currently experiencing internal divisions, aligning itself with various theological factions such as liberalism, libertarianism, and universalism. However, the crucial question that must be raised concerning the resurrection motif, as upheld by orthodox Christian teaching, pertains to its profound soteriological implications. Hyper-preterism, with its potential to diminish the completed work of Christ in all its eschatological provisions, poses a serious threat to Christianity at its core. Any flaw in this particular doctrine, whether through the subtraction from the doctrinal formula or the amalgamation of diverse theoretical concepts, has severe consequences. It should be regarded as a dangerous 'errant, heretical, and apostate theology,' and in some variations, even damnable. Furthermore, by the very nature of its teachings, Hyper-preterism is considered unorthodox according to the consistent interpretation of Scripture by the Church throughout its history—a fact that the Hyper-preterist cannot deny. As Tertullian wrote: "Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must there be corruption both of the Scripture and the explanations of them."7
1
Westminster Assembly. 1851. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, Chapter I, VI
2
Ibid., Chapter I, X
3
Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2001), 268.
4
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 662-663.
5
Mr. Frost has since left this heretical movement and reclaimed the historic Christian faith and practice.
6
Observations, pgs. 1-11, old RCM Website.
7
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 261, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Subscribe to Reformed : Contra Mundum
By Jason L Bradfield · Launched 8 months ago
An archive of works against various heresies, particularly hyper preterism, aka full preterism, from a biblical and confessionally reformed world and life view.
Type your email...
Subscribe
Comments
Write a comment...
Top
New
Community
The Two-Kingdoms Theory
Robert Letham
JUN 16
1
Roderick Edwards: Employing Words but Denying their Meaning
Still Teaching Heresy after Leaving Heresy
MAR 25
•
JASON L BRADFIELD
4
1
Max King's Heresy Lives On in Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar
I do not follow CrossPolitic. I’m not a Fight, Laugh, & Feast network member, and I have no first-hand experience with what goes on in their Facebook…
MAR 28
•
JASON L BRADFIELD
1
3
See all
Ready for more?
Type your email...
Subscribe
© 2023 Jason L Bradfield
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start Writing
Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 6, 2023 12:27:43 GMT -5
How much more will this be the case with anyone who by wicked doctrine corrupts the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such a one becomes defiled. He will go away into everlasting fire, and so will everyone that listens to him. - Ignatius
A novel strain of Gnosticism, termed Hyper-preterism, is infiltrating today's Christian community. This movement revived outdated doctrines previously denounced as heretical by various historical church councils and confessions. This contemporary eschatological theory is characterized by its radical denial of four essential Christian beliefs: (1) the denial of a physical resurrection; (2) the rejection of Christ's physical return; (3) the negation of a final judgment; and (4) the dismissal of an ultimate culmination of history.
Some of these Gnostic repudiations have roots dating back to the first century. The Sadducees, for instance, espoused the belief that "there is no resurrection" (Matthew 22:23), while others propagated ideas that undermined faith, asserting that "the resurrection has already happened." (2 Timothy 2:18). Various unorthodox systems, including Socinians, Arians (modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses), liberalism, and the contemporary mystics of New Age philosophy, have also embraced these Gnostic teachings, particularly the concept of a non-bodily resurrection.
In addressing the church of his time, the apostle Peter issued a warning about the perils of destructive doctrines and their impact on the visible church. He stated, "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep." (2 Peter 2:1-3). It is the responsibility of every Christian, particularly the pastors of the church of Jesus Christ, to safeguard the flock against heresies that blaspheme the truth of Scripture.
In the words of Paul: “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.”
Ecclesiastical authorities must avert their attention from individuals who distort the Gospel of Jesus Christ and propagate erroneous doctrines that undermine the foundational tenets of the Christian faith.
Two specific issues raised by the Hyper-preterists require addressing before delving into a Scriptural rebuttal against this deviant teaching. The first pertains to the doctrine of sola Scriptura, while the second involves eschatological councils.
Sola Scriptura
The primary concern revolves around Hyper-preterism's claim regarding sola Scriptura (the principle of Scripture alone). Hyper-preterists maintain their commitment to sola Scriptura while simultaneously arguing that other Evangelicals do not share the same commitment. They assert that, in contrast to relying on Scripture, other Evangelicals depend on interpretative frameworks presented in confessions and creeds upheld by the church for more than two millennia. This is a false dilemma.
The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the doctrine of sola Scriptura as follows:
VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.1
Sola Scriptura asserts that the fundamental and ultimate standard for all matters of doctrine, encompassing every aspect of life, is the Word of God—specifically, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. Scripture stands as the sole infallible authority, holding a monopoly on truth. This perspective aligns with the declaration in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
However, what is often misunderstood is that the doctrine of sola Scriptura accepts the utilization of biblically grounded Christian tradition, as evident in the creedal statements of the church of Christ. Creedal theology has consistently been viewed as a secondary norm in theology. It's crucial to note that during the Reformation, the debate about tradition was not centered on established, biblically-based creedal theology. Instead, the contention was with the "extra-Biblical tradition" established by the Roman Catholic Church, which lacked a Scriptural foundation and was consequently deemed unacceptable. The Reformers asserted the absolute authority of Scripture while acknowledging the value of established, biblically based creedal doctrines formulated by the church since its early post-apostolic days. They recognized the benefit of such creedal teachings for (1) instructing the church in the truth of Scripture and (2) defending the faith against non-Scriptural truth claims.
Creedal theology is a valuable tool for teaching and defending the Christian faith. The creeds and confessions, functioning as subordinate standards, enable the church, described as "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), to articulate biblical doctrine and better preserve it. The Reformers and Christianity, in general, clearly distinguished between the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God and the creedal theology systematically developed by the church. The creeds and confessions of the church hold authority to the extent that they align with the teachings of the Bible.
The present writer considers the Westminster Confession of Faith to be the most exemplary representation of Biblical theology in contemporary Christendom. According to the confession, its teachings should be understood in the context of Scripture.
X. The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.2
Historic councils and confessions are products of Biblical exegesis. Whether we agree with the conclusions drawn is a matter of personal judgment. However, labeling confessional declarations as "hyper-confessionalism," as some Hyper-preterists have done, is misleading. The authority of church creeds and confessions as subordinate standards lies in their Scriptural foundation. These documents result from the theological acumen of some of the most brilliant minds ever raised up in the church by God.
The three significant confessions of the 17th century – the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Congregational Savoy Declaration (1658), and the London Baptist Confession (1689) – serve as the pinnacle creeds of a millennium and a half of doctrinal work in the church. They exhibit a remarkable harmony of doctrine, with approximately ninety percent alignment in their teachings. It is crucial to approach the rejection of such creeds with caution, considering they reflect the insights of numerous great minds bestowed by God upon the church.
Additionally, the teachings of eminent theological scholars throughout the history of the church, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Ulrich Zwingli, Theodore Beza, John Knox, Francis Turretin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, and W. G. T. Shedd, should be taken into account. These individuals, alongside numerous other scholars and ministers who adhered to orthodox church teachings, including their views on eschatology, are the foundational figures in the Christian faith. Hebrews 13:7 urges believers to remember and follow those who have spoken the word of God, considering the outcome of their conduct. Proverbs 22:28 warns against removing the ancient landmarks set by our fathers.
When faced with the multitude of faithful confessions and individual Christian theologians who have all affirmed the fundamental orthodox teachings of the church, it is evident that denying or disregarding the coherence and consistency built over centuries of doctrinal belief requires considerable arrogance, to say the least.
Hyper-preterists assert that it is only through their recent development of eschatological interpretation that believers have finally unraveled the supposed errors in the church's historic creeds, liberating Christians from doctrines that have remained undisputed in the body of Christ for centuries. According to them, only now can these teachings about the resurrection, Christ's return, the final judgment, and the culmination of history be truly understood.
This perspective places individuals at the forefront of determining doctrinal orthodoxy. Instead of the church being "the pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), this form of individualistic authority, which may explain why many Hyper-preterists are not members of the visible church of Jesus Christ, promotes the autonomy of the individual and diminishes the authority that Christ has bestowed upon the church. As Proverbs 14:12 warns, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death."
The Lack of an Eschatological Council
The second concern related to Hyper-preterism involves the assertion that there has never been a council specifically addressing eschatology. According to this perspective, it is argued that it is now necessary to assemble a council to address this issue. Some proponents of this idea point to Dr. Gordon Clark and Louis Berkhof as theologians who supported the notion of convening such a council. However, in reality, neither Clark nor Berkhof advocated for convening a council to address eschatology. Instead, their position was that a council or assembly should have been called to establish which millennial view aligns with Biblical teachings more clearly. Gordon Clark expressed this viewpoint in his writings:
The [Westminster] Confession has very little to say on Christ’s return. Its last chapter gives a relatively full account of the judgment, but only in the last few phrases of section 3 is Christ’s return mentioned at all. Yet it would seem that there is more material in the New Testament on this subject… Historically the lack of balance is understandable; but theologically it is unfortunate. Because the struggle with Rome centered on justification by faith and the sole authority of the Bible, the order of events concomitant with the Second Advent was not a matter of discussion… For the last hundred years, however, the details of eschatology have evoked a great deal of interest.3
Clark focused on the question of whether an individual should subscribe to a premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial perspective in eschatology. In his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Clark affirmed the shared distinctives among all these millennial views, including (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history.
Louis Berkhof expressed the same concern in his Systematic Theology:
Speaking generally, it may be said that Christianity never forgot the glorious predictions respecting its future and the future of the individual Christian. Neither the individual Christian nor the church could avoid thinking about these and finding comfort in them. Sometimes, however, the church, borne down with cares of life, or entangled in its pleasures, thought little of the future. Moreover, it happened repeatedly that at one time it would think more of this, and at another time, more of that particular element of its future hope. In days of defection the Christian hope sometimes grew dim and uncertain, but it never died out altogether. At the same time it must be said that there has never been a period in the history of the Christian church, in which eschatology was the center of Christian thought. The other loci of Dogmatics have each had their time of special development, but this cannot be said of eschatology.
The Reformation adopted what the early church taught respecting the return of Christ, the resurrection, the final judgment, and eternal life, and brushed aside the crass form of Chiliasm which appeared in the Anabaptist sects… It can hardly be said that the Reformation did much for the development of eschatology.4
Berkhof further affirmed (1) the physical resurrection of the dead; (2) the visible and physical return of Christ; (3) the final judgment; and (4) the culmination of history. Like Clark, Berkhof expressed regret that the church had made minimal efforts to resolve the question of which millennial view aligns most closely with Biblical teachings and the specifics of the end times.
Interestingly, a question was posed in a conversation with a Hyper-preterist: "If we were to convene an assembly or council today, would you accept its findings?" The response was revealing: "Most likely not!" Hyper-preterists recognize that the Christian church would affirm the four eschatological doctrines they reject. None of the Christian church councils in history have supported the views embraced by Hyper-preterists.
Hyper-preterism and the Charge of Heresy
A key issue in the Hyper-preterist controversy revolves around the accusation of heresy. The question of whether Hyperpreterists can be classified as heretics requires careful consideration. Often, the charge of heresy has been applied indiscriminately. Technically, theological disputes have four primary classifications regarding "false doctrine." The first category is "errant theology," signifying a perspective that doesn't deviate from a particular church or denomination's accepted (orthodox) teachings. Hyper-preterism falls clearly into the realm of errant theology. The second category is "heresy," denoting a teaching that advocates a doctrine contrary to an accepted creedal position. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism is deemed "heretical." Samuel Frost5, once a well-educated spokesperson for the Hyperpreterist movement, acknowledged this classification:
Preterism, the word I chose to call this doctrine and movement, is a risky venture. Two millennia of church tradition on the Second Coming of Christ is now seen as an error. This was not a minor theological dispute, either. The Second Coming of Christ was and is a major tenet of Christianity…. Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of A.D. 66-70. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and the Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years. This is a contradiction to Christian orthodoxy and its Creeds, Councils and all the Reformed, Baptist, and Methodist Standards… It advocates as it starting point that Jesus returned in that "generation" and that "all things" were fulfilled in that generation… This has caused, to use another postmodern term, a "paradigm shift" in our understanding of eschatology… The point I want to make is that prior to our shift to preterism, were we in error when we proclaimed the Second Coming of Christ as yet future? Were we in error when we stated that God, the Bible and the Spirit teaches that "He shall come again?" Were we in error when we took, what we now believe to be a false hope [authors note: he means Christ coming again at the end of time], this view and said that "this is what God says: He shall come again!"? We now believe that God does not "say" that. The Bible does not teach that… I am a [hyper] preterist. I believe in doctrinal changes. I believe in paradigm shifts. I believe in following the truth against the Majority. I am a "heretic" according to the Council of Nicea and the Westminster Confession of Faith. So be it.6
Reflecting on Mr. Frost's concise expression in the previous quote is worthwhile. Firstly, he acknowledged that Hyperpreterism is a "risky venture," fully aware that he embraced a doctrine that has been condemned by the church over the course of its 2000-year history. What was consistently upheld as a crucial element of the Christian faith was being contradicted and dismissed as a valid doctrine of Scripture. Secondly, he underscored that this denial was not a minor theological matter but rather a rejection of the Second Coming of Christ, which he recognized as "a major tenet of Christianity." Thirdly, what was being denied encompassed the Second Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the significant judgment expected at the end of the age. He admitted that this contradicted Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the Christian church's councils, creeds, and confessional standards. Fifthly, he acknowledged the gravity of this denial and understood that considering the church's doctrine on eschatological matters, the historical Christian church is justified in labeling Hyper-preterists as "heretics." Sixthly, this denial was rooted in a paradigm shift in hermeneutical interpretation. Lastly, he concluded by openly admitting to being a "heretic" according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and he embraced the term "heretic" as a badge of honor when he said, "so be it."
Such assertions should be deeply troubling to any professing Christian. When a self-proclaimed believer openly acknowledges being a "heretic" and willingly accepts the consequences of adhering to an unorthodox doctrine without reservation, it raises questions about the authenticity of their profession of faith. In actuality, not only was Mr. Frost a heretic according to the Nicene Council and the Westminster Confession of Faith, but also of the Apostles’ Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. The latter Creed begins by stating: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal Christian] faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." The Creed concludes with the affirmation: "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." Concerning the view of the second advent of Christ, the Athanasian Creed asserts: "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." Perhaps the reason Mr. Frost omitted mentioning the Athanasian Creed when highlighting his divergence from historical Christianity is that he would then be admitting not just to being a "heretic" but a "damnable heretic."
The third classification is "damnable heresy." Damnable heresy denotes a belief so contrary to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, such as justification by works, that persisting in such a belief would lead to damnation. The fourth category is "apostasy," defined as a false teaching added to the essentials of the Christian faith to the extent that it misguides and alters these essential doctrines. According to this definition, Hyper-preterism can be considered apostate.
Concluding Remarks
By rejecting the four fundamental eschatological tenets of the Christian faith—namely, the physical resurrection of the body, the physical return of Christ, the final judgment, and the end of history—Hyper-preterism has embraced a new form of Gnosticism. This Gnosticism introduces a novel paradigm into its hermeneutical system, with its eschatological dogma serving as a template to reshape the entirety of its theological teachings. In this errant framework, every aspect of thought is governed by its eschatological perspective, asserting that the second and sole coming of Jesus Christ occurred in A.D. 70. This belief necessitates the redefinition or recasting of other major doctrines, leading further away from orthodox teachings.
An instance of this is seen in Hyper-preterists rejecting the concept of "original sin" as the cause of Adam's physical death, contending that the consequences of the "fall of man" were solely spiritual, not physical. Some Hyper-preterists go further to argue that a visible church is no longer necessary. If there's no need for a visible church, the role of church officers (preachers/teachers) becomes obsolete, as do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. This perspective arises from believing that Christ's fulfillment occurred in A.D. 70, rendering everything complete. Additionally, certain Hyper-preterists deny the ongoing relevance of the Law of God (the Ten Commandments) and, in the realm of soteriology, adopt a form of universalism. These trends within the Hyper-preterist movement are considered highly perilous and may border on the classification of "damnable heresy."
The Hyper-preterist movement is currently experiencing internal divisions, aligning itself with various theological factions such as liberalism, libertarianism, and universalism. However, the crucial question that must be raised concerning the resurrection motif, as upheld by orthodox Christian teaching, pertains to its profound soteriological implications. Hyper-preterism, with its potential to diminish the completed work of Christ in all its eschatological provisions, poses a serious threat to Christianity at its core. Any flaw in this particular doctrine, whether through the subtraction from the doctrinal formula or the amalgamation of diverse theoretical concepts, has severe consequences. It should be regarded as a dangerous 'errant, heretical, and apostate theology,' and in some variations, even damnable. Furthermore, by the very nature of its teachings, Hyper-preterism is considered unorthodox according to the consistent interpretation of Scripture by the Church throughout its history—a fact that the Hyper-preterist cannot deny. As Tertullian wrote: "Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must there be corruption both of the Scripture and the explanations of them."7
1
Westminster Assembly. 1851. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, Chapter I, VI
2
Ibid., Chapter I, X
3
Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2001), 268.
4
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 662-663.
5
Mr. Frost has since left this heretical movement and reclaimed the historic Christian faith and practice.
6
Observations, pgs. 1-11, old RCM Website.
7
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pg. 261, Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Subscribe to Reformed : Contra Mundum
By Jason L Bradfield · Launched 8 months ago
An archive of works against various heresies, particularly hyper preterism, aka full preterism, from a biblical and confessionally reformed world and life view.
Type your email...
Subscribe
Comments
Write a comment...
Top
New
Community
The Two-Kingdoms Theory
Robert Letham
JUN 16
1
Roderick Edwards: Employing Words but Denying their Meaning
Still Teaching Heresy after Leaving Heresy
MAR 25
•
JASON L BRADFIELD
4
1
Max King's Heresy Lives On in Kim Burgess and Gary DeMar
I do not follow CrossPolitic. I’m not a Fight, Laugh, & Feast network member, and I have no first-hand experience with what goes on in their Facebook…
MAR 28
•
JASON L BRADFIELD
1
3
See all
Ready for more?
Type your email...
Subscribe
© 2023 Jason L Bradfield
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start Writing
Get the app
Substack is the home for great writing
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 7, 2023 10:34:38 GMT -5
| Show blocked content
Getting too much email?
Reformed : Contra Mundum <reformation@substack.com>
You
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The Place of Paradox
Dr. Robert Reymond
DEC 6
Now I want to turn the reader’s attention to the second major issue to be considered in this chapter, namely, the place which we should assign to paradox in systematic theological formulation. I wish to begin by stating that I take for granted that the Christian reader wholeheartedly believes (1) that God is rational, that is, that God is logical, that he thinks and speaks in a way that reflects the so-called ‘laws’ of logic—the law of identity (A is A), the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A), and the law of excluded middle (A is either A or non-A)—just as all other rational minds do, (2) that his knowledge is self-consistent, and (3) that he cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Accordingly, just because God is rational, self-consistent, and always and necessarily truthful, I would insist that we should assume that his inscripturated propositional revelation to us—the Holy Scriptures—is of necessity also rational, self-consistent, and true. (In the light of our just concluded discussion, I would even insist that the truth which God’s revelation intends to convey to us is, in addition, univocal truth.) That this view of Holy Scripture is a common Christian conviction is borne out, I would suggest, in the consentient willingness by Christians everywhere to affirm that there are no contradictions in Scripture. The church, on a wide scale, has properly seen that the rational character of the one living and true God would of necessity have to be reflected in any propositional self-revelation which he determined to give to men, and accordingly has confessed the entire truthfulness (inerrancy) and non-contradictory character of the Word of God.
Now while the evangelical church—that large portion of Protestant Christendom which believes that the Bible is the Word of God—everywhere and unhesitatingly confesses this, not all of its theologians and preachers have endorsed this conviction. While many Bible-believing theologians and preachers unwittingly do so, many other Bible-believing theologians and preachers self-consciously affirm that the Scriptures, even when correctly interpreted, will represent their truths to the human existent—even the believing human existent—in paradoxical terms, that is, in terms which (so it is said), while not actually contradictory, are nevertheless not only apparently contradictory but also cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason. It is commonly declared, for example, that the doctrines of the Trinity, the person of Christ, God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, unconditional election and the sincere offer of the gospel, and particular redemption and the universal offer of the gospel are all biblical paradoxes—each advancing antithetical truths which are unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.¹
James I. Packer affirms the presence of such paradoxes in Scripture in his Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, although he prefers the term ‘antinomy’ to ‘paradox’:
… we have to deal with… antinomy in the biblical revelation… What is an antinomy?… an antinomy—in theology, at any rate—is… not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable… [An antinomy] is insoluble… What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent contradiction as real…²
Van Til even declares that, because man’s knowledge is ‘only analogical’ to God’s knowledge, all Christian truth will finally be paradoxical, that is, all Christian truth will ultimately appear to be contradictory to the human existent. Ponder his exact words:
A word must… be said about the question of antinomies… They are involved in the fact that human knowledge can never be completely comprehensive knowledge. Every knowledge transaction has in it somewhere a reference point to God. Now since God is not fully comprehensible to us we are bound to come into what seems to be contradictions in all our knowledge. Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.³
I have contended that we must think more concretely and analogically… All the truths of the Christian religion have of necessity the appearance of being contradictory… We do not fear to accept that which has the appearance of being contradictory… In the case of common grace, as in the case of every other biblical doctrine, we should seek to take all the factors of Scripture teaching and bind them together into systematic relations with one another as far as we can. But we do not expect to have a logically deducible relationship between one doctrine and another. We expect to have only an analogical system.⁴
What should one say respecting this oft-repeated notion that the Bible will often (always, according to Van Til) set forth its (unmistakably taught) truths in irreconcilable terms? To say the least, one must conclude, if such is the case, that it condemns at the outset as futile even the attempt at systematic (orderly) theology that Van Til calls for in the last source cited, since it is impossible to reduce to a system irreconcilable paradoxes which steadfastly resist all attempts at harmonious systematization. One must be content simply to live theologically with a series of ‘discontinuities’.
Now if nothing more could or were to be said, this is already problematical enough because of the implications such a construction carries regarding the nature of biblical truth. But more can and must be said.
First, the proffered definition of ‘paradox’ (or antinomy) as two truths which are both unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which also cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason is itself inherently problematical, for the one who so defines the term is suggesting by implication that either he knows by means of an omniscience that is not normally in the possession of men that no man is capable of reconciling the truths in question or he has somehow universally polled every man who has ever lived, is living now, and will live in the future and has discovered that not one has been able, is able, or will be able to reconcile the truths. But it goes without saying that neither of these conditions is or can be true for any man. Therefore, the very assertion that there are paradoxes, so defined, in Scripture is seriously flawed by the terms of the definition itself. There is no way for any man to know if such a phenomenon is present in Scripture. Merely because any number of scholars have failed to reconcile to their satisfaction two given truths of Scripture is no proof that the truths cannot be harmonized before the bar of human reason. And if just one scholar claims to have reconciled the truths to his own satisfaction, his claim ipso facto renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect.
Second, while those who espouse the presence in Scripture of paradoxes are solicitous to point out that these paradoxes are only apparent and not actual contradictions, they seem to be oblivious to the fact that, if actually non-contradictory truths can appear as contradictories and if no amount of study or reflection can remove the contradiction, there is no available means to distinguish between this ‘apparent’ contradiction and a real contradiction. Since both would appear to the human existent in precisely the same form—contradictories—and since neither will yield up its contradiction to study and reflection, how does the human existent know for certain that he is embracing only a seeming contradiction and not a real contradiction?
Third, and if the former two difficulties were not enough, this last point, only rarely recognized, should deliver the coup de grace to the entire notion that irreconcilable (only ‘apparent,’ of course) contradictions exist in Scripture: once one asserts that truth may legitimately assume the form of an irreconcilable contradiction, he has given up all possibility of ever detecting a real falsehood. Every time he rejects a proposition as false because it ‘contradicts’ the teaching of Scripture or because it is in some other way illogical, the proposition’s sponsor only needs to contend that it only appears to contradict Scripture or to be illogical, and that his proposition is one of the terms (the Scripture may provide the other) of one more of those paradoxes which we have acknowledged have a legitimate place in our ‘little systems’, to borrow a phrase from Tennyson. But this means both the end of Christianity’s uniqueness as the revealed religion of God since it is then liable to—nay, more than this, it must be open to—the assimilation of any and every truth claim of whatever kind, and the death of all rational faith.
Now it begs the question to respond to this crisis in truth detection by insisting that in this situation one must simply believe what the Bible says about these other claims to truth and reject those that contradict the Bible, if one has already conceded that the Bible itself can and does teach that truths may come to the human existent in paradoxical terms, that is, in irreconcilable contradictory terms. Why should either proposition of the ‘declared’ contradiction be preferred to the other when applying Scripture to a contradicting truth claim? Why not simply live with one more unresolved antithesis? The only solution to this madness is to deny to paradox, if understood as an irreconcilable contradiction, a legitimate place in a Christian theory of truth, recognizing it for what it is—the offspring of an irrational age. If there is to be an offence to men in Christianity’s truth claims, it should be the ethical implications of the cross of Christ and not the irrationality of contradictories proclaimed to men as being both true.
By nothing said thus far have I intended to deny that the living God, upon occasion, employed paradoxes (understood as apparent but reconcilable contradictories) in his spoken Word to man. But he did so for the same reason that men employ them—as a literary device to invigorate the thought being expressed, to awaken interest, to intrigue, to challenge the intellect, and to shock and frustrate the lazy mind. But I reject the notion that any of God’s truth to men will always appear to the human existent as contradictory. Specifically, I reject the notion that the cardinal doctrines of the faith—the Trinity, the person of Christ, the doctrines of grace—when proclaimed aright to men must be proclaimed as contradictory constructs. What a travesty—to perpetrate the notion that the great and precious doctrines which are central and vital to Christian faith and life are all, at heart, a veritable nest of irreconcilable ‘discontinuities’!
Now I readily concede that it is possible for an erring exegete so to interpret two statements of Scripture that he thinks that they teach contradictory propositions. But I totally reject the idea that he will have interpreted the statements correctly. Either he misinterpreted one statement (maybe both) or he tried to relate two statements, given their specific contexts, which were never intended to be related to one another. To affirm otherwise, that is, to affirm that Scripture statements, when properly interpreted, can teach that which for the human existent is both irreconcilably contradictory and yet still true, is to make Christianity and the propositional revelation upon which it is based for its teachings irrational, and strikes at the rational nature of the God who speaks throughout its pages. God is Truth itself, Christ is the Logos of God, neither can lie, what they say is self-consistent and noncontradictory, and none of this is altered in the revelatory process. It does the cause of Christ no good, indeed, only positive harm results, when the core teachings of Scripture are portrayed by Christ’s friends, not only to the non-believing mind but even to the Christian mind, as at heart a ‘precious list of contradictories’.
But what about the examples cited earlier? What about the Trinity? Does not the classical doctrine of the Trinity present, if not a real contradiction, at least an apparent one? In order to illustrate how the systematician should go about his work, while my answer here must be somewhat brief, I will run the risk of oversimplification for the sake of showing why the widely-touted, so-called paradox of the Trinity—namely, that three equals one and one equals three—is in fact not one at all. Let it be said unequivocally at the outset, if the numerical adjectives ‘one’ and ‘three’ are intended to describe in both cases the same noun so that the theologian or preacher intends to say that one God equals three Gods and three Gods equal one God (or one person equals three persons and three persons equal one person) in the same way that one might say that one apple equals three apples and three apples equal one apple, that this is not an apparent contradiction. This is a real contradiction which not even God can resolve! But of course, this is not what the church teaches by its doctrine of the Trinity, although this representation is what is advanced all too often not only by lay people but by certain theologians who should know better. No orthodox creed has ever so represented the doctrine as far as I have been able to discern. In fact, it is apparent to me that all of the historic creeds of the church have been exceedingly jealous to avoid the very appearance of contradiction here by employing one noun—‘God’ or ‘Godhead’—with the numeral ‘one’ and another noun—‘persons’—with the numeral three. The church has never taught that three Gods are one God or that one person is three persons but rather that ‘in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons’ (Westminster Confession of Faith, II. iii), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that while each is wholly divine, no one person totally comprehends all that the Godhead is hypostatically. I grant that some of the factors which insure the unity of the Godhead may be unknown to us. But I would insist that when the Bible refers to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it intends that we think of persons or distinct centres of self-consciousness within the Godhead, whereas when it employs the imprecise and flexible title ‘God’, it refers either to the Godhead construed in its unitary wholeness (for example, Genesis 1:26) or to one of the persons of the Godhead, specifically which one to be determined by the context (for example, ‘God’ in Romans 8:28 refers to the Father; ‘God’ in Romans 9:5 refers to the Son). Thus construed, the doctrine of the Trinity does not confront us with even an apparent contradiction, much less a real one. The triune God is complex but not a contradiction!
Similarly, the Christian church has never creedally declared that Christ is one person and also two persons or one nature and also two natures. Rather, the church has declared that the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two distinct natures and one person forever’ (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 21, emphasis supplied). The person of Christ as well is complex but he is not a contradiction!
In this chapter I have not been urging a Cartesian rationalism which presupposes the autonomy of human reason and freedom from divine revelation, a rationalism which asserts that it must begin with itself in the build-up of knowledge. But make no mistake about it—I am calling here for a Christian rationalism which forthrightly affirms that the divine revelation which it gladly owns and makes the bedrock of all its intellectual efforts is internally self-consistent, that is, non-contradictory. And I urge the preacher and the ministerial candidate reading these words to strive for nothing less than the same consistency in both their theological formulations and their preaching deduced from that revelation. This will mean careful reflection and a doggedness in their labours as students of the Word of God as they seek to understand the individual truths of revelation and to harmonize these truths into a systematic whole. But this labour, admittedly difficult, is infinitely to be preferred to the suggestion of all too many theologians and preachers that we must assume that the Scriptures will necessarily contain unresolvable paradoxes. Not to set before oneself the goal of quarrying from Scripture a rational theology is to sound the death knell, not only to systematic theology, but also to all theology that would commend itself to men as the truth of the one living and true God.
Most perfect is the law of God,
restoring those that stray;
His testimony is most sure,
proclaiming wisdom’s way.
The precepts of the Lord are right;
with joy they fill the heart;
The Lord’s commandments all are pure,
and clearest light impart.
The fear of God is undefiled
and ever shall endure;
The statutes of the Lord are truth
and righteousness most pure.
Reymond, Robert L. 2003. The God-Centered Preacher: Developing a Pulpit Ministry Approved by God. Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.
1
See George W. Marston, The Voice of Authority (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960), 16, 17, 21, 70, 78, 87.
2
James 1. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961), 18–25.
3
Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1955), 61, emphasis supplied.
4
Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), 165–66, emphasis supplied.
Reformed : Contra Mundum is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Reformed : Contra Mundum that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
Pledge your support
© 2023 Jason L Bradfield
|
|
|
|
Post by martinmarprelate on Dec 7, 2023 18:30:47 GMT -5
Just a brief word on Hyper-preterism.
It strikes me that it is very simply refuted by Acts 1:11.
"Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
So what does this verse tell us?
1. It is the same Jesus who was taken into heaven who will return.
2. He left in a physical body that could be touched and could eat (Luke 24:38-43). Therefore He will return in the same body.
3. He left visibly. Therefore He will return visibly.
4. Clouds eventually obscured His departure (Acts 1:9). Therefore clouds will part to reveal Him (cf. Rev. 1:7).
All these points are denied by Hyper-preterists, yet in my experience, they have no answer to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 8, 2023 9:34:22 GMT -5
Just a brief word on Hyper-preterism. It strikes me that it is very simply refuted by Acts 1:11. "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." So what does this verse tell us? 1. It is the same Jesus who was taken into heaven who will return. 2. He left in a physical body that could be touched and could eat (Luke 24:38-43). Therefore He will return in the same body. 3. He left visibly. Therefore He will return visibly. 4. Clouds eventually obscured His departure (Acts 1:9). Therefore clouds will part to reveal Him (cf. Rev. 1:7). All these points are denied by Hyper-preterists, yet in my experience, they have no answer to them.[/quote Yes it is considered heresy and yet some drift into it for awhile. We need to pray they recover from it.
The Second Advent Against Hyper-preterism Heresy DEC 6, 2023 They have boldly falsified the sacred Scriptures, rejected the canons of the ancient faith, and ignored Christ. Instead of inquiring what the sacred Scriptures say, they laboriously seek to discover what form of syllogism might be contrived to established their impiety. - Caius Introduction The belief in the "blessed hope," which refers to the personal, visible, literal, and physical return of Jesus Christ, is clearly articulated in the Holy Scripture and has been a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith throughout its long history. The church of Jesus Christ has consistently upheld this doctrine for over two millennia, and remarkably, the concept of the Second Advent has never been a source of division within the church, its councils, creeds, or confessions. The unanimity on this matter is significant and should not be underestimated. However, a contrasting view is held by Hyper-preterists who assert that Christ's final coming already occurred in A.D. 70, and consequently, they deny the expectation of any future coming. According to their perspective, the "blessed hope" transpired in A.D. 70. In addressing this, the question arises: "What does the Scripture say?" (Romans 4:3). The Second Coming Occurs at the End of the Present Age In Titus 2:11-14 the apostle Paul speaks of the “blessed hope” of the glorious return of Christ from heaven for His bride (the church), and the establishment of His everlasting kingdom: “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” In this passage, the apostle distinguishes the current era and the forthcoming age, with the latter being associated with the second advent. During the "present age," the church is instructed to combat ungodliness and worldly desires actively, adopting a lifestyle characterized by sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. This present age serves as a precursor to the era when the church will experience complete redemption—the age of the long-awaited "blessed hope." This ultimate fulfillment is anticipated to take place during the "appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." The same doctrine is taught in Romans 8:18-25: “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Once more, the apostle clearly distinguishes between the difficulties encountered in "this present time" and the eventual state where the full revelation of God's "glory that is to be revealed to us" will unfold. This passage emphasizes that salvation encompasses an individual's physical and spiritual dimensions. It calls for a comprehensive commitment of the entire person to unite with the complete Christ. Conversely, suppose one were to believe that the second advent has already occurred. In that case, the much-touted "blessed hope" for all believers, as mentioned by the apostle, might appear to be nothing more than a misplaced expectation. In such a scenario, Christians would seemingly have no anticipation other than existing as some form of disembodied entity in the afterlife. The Second Coming Will Occur on “That Day” The usage of the phrase "that day" in the New Testament aligns with the concepts we've just examined concerning the distinction between the current era and a future one. In 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10, the apostle Paul teaches that the second coming of Christ will coincide with judgment on "that day." Despite enduring persecutions and tribulations, the passage expresses gratitude to God for the growing faith and abundant love among the brethren. This endurance is seen as a clear indication of the righteous judgment of God, aiming to deem believers worthy of the kingdom of God, even amid their suffering. According to Paul, it is just for God to recompense troublemakers with tribulation and to grant relief to those who endure when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. The imagery involves flaming fire, symbolizing vengeance against those who are ignorant of God and disobedient to the gospel. These individuals will face everlasting destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His power. This decisive event is anticipated to occur on "that day," when Jesus comes to be glorified in His saints and admired by all who believe, validating the testimony that was believed among the Thessalonians. The Bible distinguishes between "the last days" and "that day." The former pertains to the current age, while the latter relates to a future era. In Acts 2:17, we encounter the statement: “And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams…" This occurrence, prophesied by Joel, occurred on Pentecost when God bestowed His Spirit upon the early Christian community. This marked the initiation of the New Testament age, the period in which we currently reside. The author of Hebrews (1:1-4) speaks of the same “last days” when he writes: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” As per these passages, the commencement of the last days aligns with the birth of Jesus Christ, and this period will persist until the conclusion of the present age. Peter affirms this perspective in his second epistle, distinguishing between the ongoing "last days" and the eventual second coming. In 2 Peter 3:3-4, he forewarns about scoffers emerging during these last days, driven by their own desires and questioning the promise of Christ's return. They skeptically remark, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” The expression "in that day," as demonstrated in 2 Thessalonians 1:3-10 (referenced earlier), pertains to the ultimate day of the current age. It signifies the day when Jesus Christ will inaugurate the final state and pass judgment on all individuals and nations. This significant day is described in Matthew 7:22-23: "On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" According to Jesus Christ, a forthcoming day, known as "that day," will be a time when individuals stand before His judgment seat, and some will be acquitted while others will not. In 2 Timothy 1:12, Paul states that he was “appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me." Similarly, in verse 18, the apostle employs the same language: "May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me— may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus." Furthermore, in 2 Timothy 4:8, Paul declares: "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing." In each of these verses, the apostle does not refer to the present age but instead points to a final day of judgment. The Second Coming is Visible Acts 1:9-11 teaches that the second coming of Christ is visible: “And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”” In this excerpt, the disciples are present with Christ on the Mount of Olives just before His ascension. After He concluded His speech, they actively observed as He was "lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight." The disciples physically witnessed Christ with their eyes, and Luke specifies that Christ was "taken up," emphasizing a literal ascent into heaven rather than a gradual fading or becoming invisible. The passage explicitly describes the disciples hearing Christ speak and witnessing Him being "taken up," and there is no indication in the text to suggest otherwise. On the contrary, Hyper-preterists argue that the phrase "a cloud took him out of their sight” should be interpreted figuratively, not literally. According to this perspective, the entire narrative hinges on this figurative interpretation, suggesting that the events described are not to be understood as physical sightings or hearings but rather symbolic representations conveyed by Luke. This interpretation is frankly absurd and undermines the credibility of the entire event. The text explicitly states that the disciples were actively observing what was happening right before their eyes. Moreover, the disciples visually witnessed Christ ascending into the heavens on a cloud and saw two "men wearing white apparel" standing beside them, observing the same event. Once again, this involves a visible, physical appearance of two beings (angels who take on the form of men, as seen in Luke 24:4, 23; John 20:12). These angels then communicate to the disciples, saying, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Notably, the angels specifically identify Christ by the name of Jesus, emphasizing that this is a bodily appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. The angels' identification of Jesus underscores the notion of a bodily ascension into the cloud. The angels further convey that this very "Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." The identical Jesus who ascended into heaven will return in the same fashion. This future coming will be visible, physical, and in the same bodily form. Just as Christ ascended visibly and literally in bodily form, so will His return be a visible and literal reappearance. It is emphasized that the Man, specifically "Jesus," will return. This second coming is not a mere spiritual arrival for judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70; it is Christ Jesus, the Man, who will appear in glory in a physical and visible form. The Apostle John wrote: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.” This text not only teaches that there will be a future second coming of Christ, but it also teaches that it will be a visible coming. The second advent, says John, will not be a mere spiritual coming but a coming that will allow His people to “see Him as He is.” Conclusion None of the passages we've explored suggest that Christ's return at the end of time will be anything but a literal, visible, and bodily event. Those whom Christ has saved continue to anticipate the "blessed hope" when the Lord Jesus Christ visibly and tangibly returns from heaven to earth. This return is expected to be a physical and visible reception of His people into His everlasting kingdom. The sentiment is aptly expressed in Revelation 22:20 with the plea, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." |
|
