Trouble with Toothpaste…

It has long been a common saying that you “cannot put toothpaste back into the tube” and that is exactly the situation would-be detractors of preterism find themselves in today. This is especially the case as it pertains to those “former” preterists who wish they could simply forget what they know deep within the innermost parts of their being to be true–that Jesus came again, just He promised in those events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

A logics professor once gave his students a simply puzzle to ponder: If a dog has four legs and a tail and you call the tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have? The answer is: four. Just because you call a tail a leg does not make it so. Likewise, with preterism. Just because a person wishes that the teachings were not true does not make it so. To date nobody in the “former” preterist (anti-preterist) camp has presented logical argumentation that refutes the very basis upon which preterism stands.

In defending the premillennial position John Walvoord observed that it is not simply an argument over the interpretation of one chapter in the book of Revelation, but that the teaching is found from Genesis to Revelation. His concept was that premillennialism itself affected every aspect of one’s theology from beginning to end. This is also the case with preterism. It is not just an argument about the so-called “time statements” of Scripture, but rather it is about the totality of the eternal purpose of God from beginning to end. For one to simply “walk away” from the teaching implies the necessity of going back to the theological “drawing board” and starting over again. While some within the Reformed community would deny that preterist teaching has any affect on the other great doctrines related to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irrestible grace, or perseverence of the saints (T.U.L.I.P.) those who are honest with themselves and with the Scriptures understand otherwise. I realize this statement runs counter with the thinking of many Reformed people, and it is certainly not my intention to be offensive to any of them, it is, nevertheless, true. The fact remains that John Calvin did not see the “big picture” as it pertained to salvation-history and the consummation of the ages in A.D. 70. This is not to imply that John Calvin was wrong in his systematic theology, only that parts of the puzzle were not evident to him at the time.

Preterists must be careful at this particular stage of development to steer clear of drawing conclusions based upon other theological preconceptions–right or wrong. Long before the time of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley and a host of others, believers were “just Christians”–nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The Bible was, and is, the standard from which “all truth” arises and no systematic theology is 100% correct. The writings of the “Church Fathers” ought to be examined and respected for the contribution each made in the quest to honor and preserve the truth. However, none were inspired then, nor are the “internet theologians” of today inspired. If we had accepted ONLY the writings of the “Church Fathers” and the “Reformers” then no place for preterism could be found. Why? Because the study of eschatology was not their central focus. The church was battling other issues such as “works based” salvation, the exaltation of the virgin Mary, denial of the doctrine of the Trinity etc. The study of Bible prophecy would have to wait until much later for the truth to be discovered and the message proclaimed.

The “former” preterists are getting a collective “pat on the back” from futurists who welcome them back into the fold with open arms. This, however, does not imply that these “born again” futurists have discovered anything of substance that refutes their former position. Every book written to refute preterism is full of logical contradictions and misapplications of Scripture. Many futurist scholars would like people to just ignore what the Scriptures teach on the basis on their reputation alone. “Preterism is wrong BECAUSE WE SAID SO” is not a valid argument and people such as Tim LaHaye are biting off far more than they can chew when encountering a preterist who knows the Scriptures.

Believers should allow sound hermeneutics to determine their systematic theology and not the doctrines and traditions of men. A verse can never MEAN what the verse never MEANT is a good starting point in the quest for truth. I am not saying that people should throw away the contributions of great Reformers such as Calvin and others, only that we do not allow our theology to be shaped by the opinions and writings of others who may or may not be right. We honor the greatness of those who have gone before us and at the time same we press forward in our hunger and thirst for righteousness. The slogan “Always Reforming” must mean something. If the great Reformers were standing alongside us here today, what would be their position? Would they have hearts open to the truth? Would they sacrifice everything to spread the message far and wide? I think so.

Preterism is divided on many fronts–some of which is determined by our past endearment with certain forms of systematic theology. Each of us needs to be willing to study the word of God separate and apart from our “favorite” theologians in order to see the bigger picture. There is a current spirit of critical and judgmental thinking of those who take issue with either Calvinisits or Arminians and speak negatively of each. Truth is too important for us to look down our theological noses at others with whom we disagree. The questions transcend Calvin and others. God is no more a Calvinist than He is a SF 49er fan. This reminds me of the Republicans and the Democrats who insist on dragging God into the political areana and asking Him to choose sides. God is a political “independent” who transcends our silly elections and cheerleading efforts for the candidates.

The preterist toothpaste is out of the tube and those who helped to squeeze it out cannot now turn around and try to put it back into the tube. Too late.

[The statements made above about Calvinism and other doctrines were not mean as an attack against those who subscribe to every aspect of his theology. John Calvin was a good man with a humble heart and a willingness to take stand on his convictions. I apologize in advance for those who may be offended by the observations--they are mine alone. I believe in the Sovereign grace of God, election, predestination, etc as is taught in the Scriptures and not because these doctrines fall into any particular category.--Larry Siegle]