Theonomy-L submission from "Rev. Brian M. Abshire" <abshire@ix.netcom.com>

David (steward@bayou.com) writes:

Hey Brian,

>         I agreed with much of Andy's post and think the HP
>are in serious error (along with others on the 'resurrections). But your
>point above does clarify your position about the 'Heresy'. I was going to ask
>if my historic understanding of 'heresy' didn't mean that an error carried with it
>damnation -- which all errors do NOT.
>         Here where I question the heresy thing. Is this a
>damnable to hell error? Why? I think consistency will lead them to some pretty silly
>practices (like abolition of the Lord's Supper since Jesus has already
>'returned'). But tell me WHY ya'll think this serious error a
>'damnable to hell heresy'? I just don't see it necessitating them denying cardinal
>doctrines?  Can they say The Apostles Creed? -- since, I  suppose they'd say,
>the fathers were in error???
>         I don't wanna wuss out here and ain't a bit fraid of
>calling for strong dicipline if necessary. But let's just be patient and
>certain we are  dealing with a real bonified Heresy okay?

David here makes a good point and since it is late and I still have to finish the bulletin for tomorrow's service, I am going to cheat and quote from a recent email exchange from Andrew Sandlin where he quotes from several historic sources.

If I didn't have a past affiliation with Chalcedon, and if I didn't still care about that ministry, I wouldn't bother writing this letter.

I am disturbed by the willingness to excommunicate preterists and the hesitancy to dialogue. I see it as part of a spiritual problem which has long hamstrung the Reconstructionist movement.

I don't pretend to know all about "hyper-preterism." Even though I am largely sympathetic with the position, for sake of the argument I do not claim to be a "consistent" or "full" preterist (1 Cor 9:22). I'm not sure I know what that position teaches (if there *is* a single teaching of "that position," especially WRT the bodily nature of saints after death). But I am 100% convinced that Andrew Sandlin and Brian Abshire have the wrong attitude:

We do not debate them, we refute them. We also excommunicate them. We say loudly and publicly and often, "These men are not of us. They have departed from us. They are not Christians." 

The HP's deny one of the cardinal doctrines of that Faith. Therefore  they are not brothers. Therefore we do not debate them, we evangelize them. 

What the Church catholic needs in the area of eschatology is DEBATE, not excommunications. The creeds teach error. Maybe the "hyper- preterists" teach error as well, but it is a matter of inescapable fact that it is *the creeds*, in their affirmations of premillennialism, which are in hermeneutical error.
Proof of this controversial assertion is easy, a piece of cake. Observe:

It is now elementary that the first half of Matthew 24 refers to the coming of Christ in AD70 against Jerusalem. Every post-mil agrees with this: M. Kik, Rushdoony, Gentry, Sandlin and Abshire. These all claim to be "partial preterists." Preterism WRT this text is now "orthodox."

Premillennialism denies this. Premillennialism is the doctrine of anti-Christ, as I have attempted to prove:

http://members.aol.com/xmaspiracy/1/pretnote.htm

Unfortunately, the creeds are partially premillennial. The Westminster Standards are premillennial in Larger Catechism Q. 56, where it asserts that Christ "shall come again at the last day in great power." The prooftext is Matthew 24:30. This is wrong. It is error. It reflects a basic hermeneutical mal-presupposition, that of premillennialism. It would be better to have a millstone tied around you than to teach error which might lead people astray. The creeds teach error. Scripture alone is our infallible guide.

Postmillennialists have accepted the seeds of preterism. In this, they depart from the creeds and medieval theology. They have thus opened the door to debate: Just *how many* texts should be given a preterist interpretation?

But with hypocrisy and inconsistency, Sandlin and Abshire now say that only a certain amount of deviation from the creeds will be acceptable, and such deviation may occur in one seminary class (New Testament Exegesis), but not another (Systematic Theology). When they exegete Luke 21:27, they will insist (against the premillennialists) that it was fulfilled in AD70. But in the Systematic Theology class they turn around and insist that we believe the Confession when it teaches the premillennialist interpretation of that text (WCF 33:3)!
Raised eyebrows are consigned to hell.

If the Mormon church wants to say I'm not a Christian because I don't accept their definition of Christ, too bad for the Mormon church.
I reject their entire hermeneutical presupposition.
Sola Scriptura!
If the presbyterian church wants to say I'm not a Christian because I don't accept their interpretation of Matt 24:30 and Luke 21:27, too bad for the presbyterian church.
I reject their entire premillennial hermeneutical presupposition.
Sola Scriptura!

I think this proves that a re-thinking on eschatology is in order.
How many other texts have the creeds misinterpreted?
The creeds are fallible.

Chalcedon should be sponsoring a debate, not decreeing excommunications.

That is the end of my venting. The rest of this letter consists of questions which the reader is free to skip.

All coments are appreciated.

"He . . . sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

Even more dangerous is condemning someone who refuses to believe something taught in the creed when that teaching has no Scriptural support:

How can we condemn to hell someone who asks these questions? (Especially when their questions are prompted by patent error in the creeds?)

Question 87 of the Larger Catechism tells what we are to believe concerning the resurrection. The chief texts are 1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4, and John 5:27-29. I think it possible that John 5, if not speaking of a spiritual resurrection (Eph 2:6) is speaking of the resurrection in Matt 27. That means that a person can be said to be an unbeliever (i.e., "not a brother") based on his interpretation of two admittedly mysterious texts. It should be noted that such a hermeneutical excommunication in the past would have been based on many more texts, such as Matthew 24, but all these other texts have been shown by preterist exegesis to have been fulfilled in AD70, and Sandlin and Abshire admit this, because they too hold that these verses were fulfilled in AD70. These two texts (1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4) are the only plausible texts left in the non-preterist arsenal.

And upon his agreement with a certain interpretation of these verses, we will declare a person to be saved or unsaved, believer or unbeliever, brother or outsider?

The deeper spiritual problem lies not with those who don't understand these texts, and who raise questions, and direct us to the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) but with those who consign the Bereans to hell. IMHO.

"was crucified, rose again on the third day; and having ascended into heaven, sat at the right [hand] of the Father; ... sent the only Spirit with vicarious power to lead those who believe; is going to come in glory to take the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the godless to eternal fire, after the resurrection of both classes and their restoration in the flesh.... This rule, as will be proved, was taught by Christ, and admits of no questions among us, except those which heresies bring in and which make men heretics."

The Bible and Christianity teach that Christians will be resurrected and glorified at the last day in the same bodies they presently possess.

The appropriate response is dialogue, not decrees.

The Bible and Christianity teach that Christ will return visibly and bodily (Ac. 1:11)

I know *this*, however: I reject premillennialism in all forms, even those forms found in the creeds.

The Bible and Christianity teach that Christ arose in the same body (but glorified) in which he lived and died--and still and always will have that body. Some of the HPs teach that he did not rise in the same body--in other words, he was never resurrected.

But even assuming that there is somewhere a Full Pret who denies Christ's resurrection, how is this position a *logical necessity* given a denial of a future bodily advent of Christ?

I say, Resurrected, but changed.
The body which Jesus had was raised and left the tomb.
But it did not leave "the same."
(Imagine Torquemada, heating his instruments of Inquisition over the hot coals. He asks, "Did Jesus have the same body after His resurrection?" Am I supposed to say "Yes, it was the same!" in order to keep Sandlin from denouncing me as an unbeliever? It surely was not "the same." it was an immortal, glorified body.)

I think it's debatable whether the *pre*-resurrection Jesus had the same kind of body we now have (Luke 4:30; John 8:59). It stands to reason we may not have the same kind of body Jesus had after His resurrection. (I emphasize the word "debatable.")

It is surely worthy of note that the disciples did not even recognize the body of the post-resurrection Jesus (John 20:14; 21:4; Luke 24:16) because of their unbelief (Mark 16:14). Could this explain why Roman historians did not mention the bodily coming of Christ in AD70?

The Westminster Standards teach error.
Error MUST be debated. It MUST NOT be taught.

I think Andrew makes a powerful case here. The ancient church clearly called those who rejected the second coming AS A FUTURE EVENT as heretics for they deny one of the cardinal doctrines of the faith.

The partial preterist is just as much (or more) in violation of the creeds as the full preterist is, simply because they add to the list of events summarized in the creeds.   They add another Parousia of Christ to the list of creedal events.  The full preterist does not change the list of events.  We affirm only one Parousia just like the creeds do, except we re-interpret the TIME and NATURE of its fulfillment.  The partial preterist adds another Parousia to the creeds with an AD 70 TIME and NATURE of fulfillment attached to it.  So, they are changing the creeds more materially than the full prets are.

I think we should simply say the creeds are wrong on eschatology. They are infected with premillennialism. As unfashionable as it may be, we should listen to Gary North:

The one doctrine universally held in the seventeenth century by every Protestant church, from the highest of high church Anglicans to the wildest of the Anabaptist of Fifth Monarchy sects, was the identification of the papacy with the antichrist. This doctrine was inserted into the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXV, section 6, to the embarrassment of modern American Presbyterians, who have seen fit to footnote this passage into oblivion, and quite properly so. However, it is interesting to witness the most orthodox of Presbyterians drop the one doctrine which was the touchstone of Protestant orthodoxy from Luther's day until about 1930. At least they set a most-needed precedent, namely, confessional revision of even the most universally accepted traditions of Protestantism. They recognized that the presence in the Confession of unsubstantiated human opinion, in contrast to clearly revealed biblical truth, should not be tolerated, once men realize that the traditional opinion is incorrect. It is a precedent that should be honored.

submissions to Theonomy-L@dlh.com miscellaneous requests to dlh@dlh.com

Meanwhile, see you at the Preterist Conference in Orlando?

All comments appreciated.

Kevin Craig
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7