Sandlin Condemns Seraiah?                The Preterist ABCs    
 part two - Will The Real Biblical Preterist Please Stand Up?!?!
 part three - Sirs, What Must I Do To Be Saved?
J. E. Gautier Jr.
I was surfing the other day on the Preterist Archive and came across a link to The Chalcedon Foundation.  On that site I found an article titled, "Setting the Record Straight: What Chalcedon Really Believes."  This article was written by the Reverend P. Andrew Sandlin, one of the most vocal opponents to the Preterist view of the Scriptures.  In the above article under the heading "Disposable Eschatology," Rev. Sandlin states -
"Because we [Chalcedon] believe that Christ’s first coming established His kingdom (Mt. 3:2), and His church is presently energized to advance that kingdom (Mt. 28:18-20), and because some heretics have suggested that His Second Advent, and the final resurrection and judgment of the just and unjust occurred in A. D. 70, we are sometimes criticized for diminishing the importance of the great eschatological (future) events of Christianity. This charge is quite erroneous."
He then goes on to provide us with some Scripture passages that, in his opinion, affirm the teaching of a yet future-to-us Coming of Christ.
"...Further, those who claim [the "heretics" from above statement. JEGjr] that Jesus Christ’s Second Advent, and the final resurrection and judgment of the just and unjust occurred in A. D. 70, assault the Bible and the Faith. Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus will return just as he ascended -- bodily and visibly, with his disciples gazing at him, and we know that this has not yet happened in history. He is to come ' [i]n flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ' (2 Thes. 1:8)..."

OK, so, Rev. Sandlin sees 2 Thessalonians 1:8 as yet future-to-us because "we know that this has not yet happened in history" AND if you believe that it has, you must be a "heretic."  My question is this - How is it then, that Rev. Sandlin endorsed C. Jonathin Seraiah's book, The End of All Things, A Defense of the Future ?  On the back cover Rev. Sandlin writes -

"The author shows that the leading biblical texts that [Preterists] employ to buttress their position do not in fact support it and that other texts flatly refute it."

I'm wondering, did Rev. Sandlin actually read the book?  Because one of the verses that he supplies (2 Thess.1:8) in his definition of who should be considered a heretic, Mr. Seraiah assigns to AD 70!

On page 14 of his book, Mr. Seraiah posits 2 Thessalonians 1 to AD 70 (bold emph. mine) -

"This recognition is helpful in distinguishing the prophecies of Christ's coming that were near, in the first century (Matt.10:23; 16:28; 24:30; 26:64; 1 Thess.5:2;  2 Thess.1:7;  James 5:7-9; 1 Pet.4:7; Rev.1:3, 7; etc.) and thus fulfilled in AD 70..."

Of course, I know that Rev. Sandlin would never (not yet anyway) say that Mr. Seraiah is a heretic.  But I think that my point is valid and proven.  How many verses on Rev. Sandlin's list can partial preterists posit at AD 70 before they fit his heretic bill?  I believe that Mr. Seraiah is 100% correct to posit the 2 Thessalonians 1 passage at AD 70.  Why?  Because it is one of the MOST preteristic passages in the New Testament.  At the same time, I understand why Rev. Sandlin MUST posit it in our future - it is one of the most futuristic (if you are a Futurist) passages in the New Testament as well.  You can read my argument for this in - Too Much Information.    

By the way, concerning Rev. Sandlin's remark that - "...some heretics have suggested that His Second Advent, and the final resurrection and judgment of the just and unjust occurred in A. D. 70" - may I just say that you would have to put the apostle Paul at the top of Rev. Sandlin's list.  You see, 2,000 years ago, Paul wrote that there was "about to be" a resurrection.  Many literal Greek translation Bibles (Young, Green, Weymouth, Darby, Marshall, etc.) translate mello (mellw) as "about to" in the resurrection verses below.  

Acts 24:14-15
"...thus I worship the ancestral God, believing all the things according to the law and the things in the prophets having been written, having hope toward God, which also these themselves expect, a resurrection TO BE ABOUT to be both of just and of unjust."    Marshall

This is the exact same form of mello (mellein) that is found in Acts 28:6 (when Paul was bitten by the poisonous snake) -

Acts 28:5-6  
"However he shook the creature off and suffered no harm.  But they were expecting that he was ABOUT TO swell up or suddenly fall down dead."    NASB
_____________________  

In 2 Timothy 4:1, the apostle Paul once again uses mello to convey the imminence of the resurrection and its connection to the ONE coming of the Son of Man in his own generation.

"I solemnly witness before God and Christ Jesus, the one BEING ABOUT to judge living ones and dead, both by the appearance of him and by the kingdom of him"    Marshall

This form of mello (melloutoz) found in II Timothy 4:1, is the exact same form that we find in Acts 18:14; a verse in which ALL of our popular versions of the Bible translate mello as - "about to."

"But when Paul was ABOUT TO open his mouth..."    NASB

Dr. James Stuart Russell on mello, and 2 Timothy 4:1 -

The nearness of this consummation is distinctly affirmed.  It is not, as in our Authorised Version, ‘who shall judge,’ but ‘who is about to judge’ [tou mellontoz krinein].  One statement like this might suffice to settle the question both as to the fact, that the time of the Parousia was at hand.  But, instead of a single affirmation, we have the constant and uniform tenor of the whole New Testament doctrine on the subject.  Those who say the apostles were in error on this point must have ‘a verifying faculty’ to distinguish between their inspired and their uninspired utterances.  If St. Paul was inspired to write krinein [to judge] was he not equally inspired to write mellontoz [being about]?  (The Parousia, p.262)  

How do these verses, Acts 24:15 and 2 Timothy 4:1, when properly translated NOT fit perfectly into the partial preterists' coming of Christ in AD 70?  Is it just a coincidence that partial preterism teaches that there was about to be a coming of the Son of Man in AD 70, and when allowed, these verses teach that very thing?  Why is it that partial preterists use the mello argument against Futurists everywhere else BUT in these verses?  Scholarly Greek translators, who are not Preterists, are translating mello as "about to" in these obvious time-frame statements of WHEN the resurrection would occur; and these verses fit perfectly into the ONE future-to-the-NT-writers Coming of Christ in AD 70 that partial preterists affirm!  How does the partial preterist explain this?  So far, none has.

More on mello and the inconsistent use of it by partial preterists - Welcome to the Dance

More verses with mello and its literal translation.




  Will The Real Biblical Preterist Please Stand Up?!?!
    (Continuation of Sandlin Condemns Seraiah?)                            

The Preterist ABCs

J. E. Gautier Jr.    

EVERY verse that used-to support a physical, literal Return of Christ - EVERY verse that actually says that He would be "seen" - EVERY verse that almost all of your popular reference Bibles will refer you to Acts 1:11 as a coinciding proof of this physical, literal Return of Christ where He would be "seen" - EVERY ONE of those verses partial preterists now say happened at AD 70!  

Matthew 16:28 - "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, TILL THEY SEE the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Matthew 24:30 - "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, AND THEY SHALL SEE the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

Matthew 26:64 - "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter SHALL YE SEE the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Revelation 1:7 - "Behold, he cometh with clouds; AND EVERY EYE SHALL SEE him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him."

If all of the verses that used-to-be the supportive scaffolding, holding up the interpretation of a future-to-us physical, literal Return of Christ, where He would be "seen" - "coming in the clouds" are taken away and consigned to AD 70...  What is left?

For partial preterists, Christ DID return with the clouds in AD 70 (above verses); but Acts 1:11 is reserved for a future Coming because - "we know that this has not yet happened in history."  Throughout Church history (and for today's Futurist), the above verses along with Acts 1:11, used-to-be considered as Scriptural support for a physical, literal Return of Christ where he would be "seen" and "coming with the clouds."  But now, because the partial preterist sees the above verses as having an AD 70 fulfillment, Acts 1:11 stands alone.  They no longer have any verse that supports Christ being "seen" physically, and literally in our future, all of those verses have been assigned to AD 70.  How then does Scripture interpret Scripture for the partial preterist in Acts 1:11?  It doesn't.  For the partial preterist, Acts 1:11 stands alone.  

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 Of the Holy Scripture

IX.  The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself:  and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. (y)

For Preterists, the above verses are AD 70 as well; but the Preterist STILL uses those verses to interpret Acts 1:11 (Scripture interpreting Scripture).  Notice that in the above verses He is said to "come with the clouds."  In Acts 1:11, a CLOUD received Him out of their sight.  He would so Return "in like manner" with the CLOUDS.
_____________________

So who is the real Biblical Preterist?  Preterists do not go outside the Scriptures to find the answers.  Yes, one of the rules of interpretation, historical context, is very useful.  Without the knowledge of the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem, it certainly would be more difficult to interpret the prophecies of the New Testament's "Day of the Lord."  But there are plenty of plain language verses, that if we simply believed Christ's words, we would not have to go outside the Scriptures to understand.  

For example, Matthew 24:1-2 -
"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple.  But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Again, I ask, does the Preterist go outside the Scriptures to another proclaimed "authority" (the creeds and/or confessions) to interpret the Scriptures, or is it the Scriptures themselves that Preterists use?

Does the partial preterist stay within the Scriptures Alone to find their future-to-us Coming of Christ?  Dr. Kenneth Gentry indicates that (paraphrase) - Only if there is a time statement attached to "the coming" THEN, and only then, should we assign that coming to AD 70.  All other "coming" passages are to be considered as still future to us.

Why Dr. Gentry?  So we don't defy the creeds?  How is this approach Sola Scriptura?

Question:  Where would anyone, first century audience or Bible reader 2,000 years in the future, ever get the idea to look for some other coming beyond that coming mentioned in connection to the time statements?  NOWHERE!  Nowhere in the Scriptures do we find any indication that Christ, or any of the apostles taught some other coming different than the ONE imminent-to-them coming.  ONLY outside the Scriptures do we find this other coming.  If Christ was teaching two different comings as partial preterists contend, why is it that NOT ONCE in the entire New Testament do we have an instance of a disciple asking for verification from Jesus as to which coming He is now referring?  Nowhere do we read of one of them raising their hand and saying, "Whoa!  Wait a minute, back up, You lost me there!  Now, which coming are You talking about this time?"  Nor do we ever find a time when Christ says, "O.K., I’m no longer speaking of the coming of the Son of Man that directly effects you; now I'm speaking of the one several thousands of years in the future."  And nowhere in the New Testament do we find an explicit time statement, like those that Dr. Gentry demands, that actually prophesy some future-to-us advent of Christ.  Not one!  There are no time statements for a future-to-us coming.

The Preterist is considered a heretic because they allow the "coming of the Son of Man" passages that have time statements attached, interpret for them the passages that supposedly don't have a time statement.  Again, who is the Biblical Preterist, and who is not?  Who is staying within the confines of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures Alone WITHOUT any outside influences, and who is not?  

Who is the real Biblical Preterist?




  “Sirs, What Must I Do To Be Saved?”                
Continuation of Sandlin Condemns Seraiah? and Will The Real Biblical Preterist Please Stand Up?!?!

The Preterist ABCs

J. E. Gautier Jr.                                        

The issue is not, Does Christ save or does doctrine save? The issue is, What is the gospel that must be the basis of any shared mission of faith?...But far more important is the question of betraying the gospel.  (Dr. R.C. Sproul, from Faith Alone)

In their anathema against Preterists, Chalcedon Foundation trustee Wayne Johnson writes:

"hyperpreterists"....[are] preachers of a false gospel.  Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be "anathema maranatha."

HYPER-PRETERIST is the special term made-up by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry for those who believe that the Bible teaches Christ’s Second Coming as a past event.  

Questions for Dr. Gentry:  Was Calvin a Hyper-Calvinist?  Isn’t it the 3 or 4 point Calvinist who looks at the 5-pointer and shouts, “HYPER!”?

Recently, I emailed Dr. Gentry and asked him:

If a person believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for their sins, yet, that person does not believe that the Bible teaches a future-to-us physical, visible Return of Christ with accompanied resurrection of our physical bodies...Is that person saved?

Dr. Gentry replied:

I still maintain that Scripture teaches that 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.'  Not:  Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his future Second Advent, and you shall be saved.

As troubling as, “Jesus Came Back Already” may sound to many, a more troubling reaction has been spawned from it.  Some are now teaching that you’d better also believe in a future-to-us Return of Christ; If you don’t, then you’re NOT saved!  Well, this sure is news to me!  I’ve been going to church my entire life and never knew that I had to believe this too.  Isn’t it strange that only now, since "Preterism has reared its ugly head," the gospel has taken on this new twist, this new requirement.

Every Preterist I know agrees with Dr. Gentry on what it takes to be saved; what is essential to saving faith, and what is not.  When it comes to the gospel message, Preterists and Dr. Gentry are on the same page.  This is what's important - “Sirs, What must I do to be saved?” - not Eschatology.  
When it comes to this basic, yet utmost important issue, Dr. Gentry is at odds with so many within his own camp!

Many teachers of this new gospel are prominent reformed, partial preterist authors and pastors: R. C. Sproul Jr. and Keith Mathison of Ligonier Ministries come to mind.  

The reason for this article is to try to put an end to this nonsense.  Above, in Chalcedon's anathema, we saw that Preterism is being called a false gospel.  Either it is, or it isn’t. BUT, if it isn’t, as Dr. Gentry agrees, then attaching the belief of a future-to-us Advent as ESSENTIAL to saving faith, when it isn’t, IS a false gospel.  Dr. Gentry must agree that only one can be true; and if only one is true, then the other must necessarily be false.  What of the churches and their occupants who do not subscribe to this form of Hyper-Salvation?  Can a person be saved if they disagree with these men?  Are the only true Christians found only in their churches?  Are you saved only if you believe EVERYTHING they teach?  Can a person be saved if they disagree with an essential?

This is much bigger than Eschatology.  This is a fight for the true gospel message.  This article is a public “call to the plate” for Dr. Gentry, and every other pastor and Bible teacher who disagrees with these men.  
It is time now to declare these Hyper-Salvationists as, to use Chalcedon’s own phraseology, “preachers of a false gospel.”

Dr. R. C. Sproul from his book Faith Alone:

Surely the Catholic Church of the sixteenth century did not consciously and intentionally condemn the gospel.  I trust that the churchmen of Rome condemned what they believed was heresy.  If in fact sola fide is the very essence of the gospel, then in her misguided zeal Rome condemned the gospel.  If the true gospel is condemned after careful deliberation, then that condemnation, intentional; or not, is an act of apostasy...Who has maintained that doctrinal theory ever saved anyone?  The sole point of sola fide, which Rome categorically rejects, is that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone.  The issue is not, Does Christ save or does doctrine save?  The issue is, What is the gospel that must be the basis of any shared mission of faith?...But far more important is the question of betraying the gospel.  It is easy for me to fall into the trap of idealizing the Reformation.  I do believe that the heart of the Reformation was the recovery and heroic defense of the gospel of sola fide...  (pp.179-191)

Guess what Dr. Sproul...it’s happening again.

This article was forwarded to Dr. Gentry on June 26, 2001, inviting him to publicly respond.  If he does, it will be posted on this page as soon as possible. --- July 10, 2002 still no response.