An Introduction and Critique of Preterism by Mark Hitchcock

C. Michael Patton at the Parchment and Pen blog recently posted Part 1 of Mark Hitchcock's critique of preterism. After listening to it, I was shocked at how badly Hitchcock had misrepresented preterism, preferring time and time again to set up strawmen for his destructive pleasure.

Here are my initial comments:

Michael [Patton], you wrote: Mark Hitchcock is one of the best Bible teachers there is and a leading authority in matters of eschatology and he is worth listening to.

Mark Hitchcock may be a leading authority in matters of futurism, but he is not a leading authority in matters of preterist eschatology. In fact, he betrays a surprising amount of ignorance of what preterists (both full and partial) actually teach and/or why they teach it. For example, Hitchcock grossly misrepresents James Stuart Russell’s millennial position as well as the “full preterist” (FP) position on several points. (I suspect he’s never even read Russell’s book or any other FP work.) Even Dee Dee, who believes FP to be heterodox, will likely agree with me, as I know she is committed to ensuring that a position is fairly represented before it is argued against.

(Dee Dee and I collaborated several years ago — has it really been that long? — to create a neutral point of view [NPOV] entry for preterism on Wikipedia. For the most part, the entry has remained static.)

I’ve finished listening to Hitchcock’s lecture and am in the process of preparing some points for discussion, not in an attempt to argue for the preterist position, but to reveal error in Hitchcock’s presentation of the position. (I suspect Dee Dee may be planning to do the same in the near future.)

Again, I do this only in the interest of correcting Hitchcock’s (mis)representation of preterism (both full and partial). Nothing good can come from arguing against a position when one misrepresents that position. It’s easy to knock a man down when he’s made of straw.

Feel free to swing by and participate in the discussion after you've listened to Hitchcock's presentation. As I mentioned above, my personal goal in this particular discussion is not necessarily to argue in favor of preterism, but rather to point out Hitchcock's flaws in his lecture and promote proper understanding of the preterist view.

Also, Sam Frost, who apparently debated Hitchcock in Florida, might want to weigh in here since Hitchcock takes him to task on his 1 Corinthians 15 material without naming names.

And, please ... be nice to Dee Dee. ;-)

Motivational Posters for the Emerging Church

Oh, dear ... some of these are pretty darn funny!

I particularly like this one:

Gotta have a self-deprecating sense of humor though. Right, Virgil?

Biblical Ehrmancy: Thoughts on Inerrancy and Bart Ehrman

I've recently discovered an outstanding blog, Parchment and Pen, hosted by C. Michael Patton, a Dallas Theological Seminary grad and premillennialist. He's not the typical DTS grad, however; he has an open mind on a number of topics, including biblical inerrancy.

DTS professor and Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace also posts quite a bit regarding textual criticism. In this particular blog series, he talks about what's at stake in the science (art?) of textual criticism and its potential effect on one's view of inerrancy. One particular textual critic, Bart Ehrman (a protegé of Bruce Metzger), came up in conversation. Partially because his work in textual criticism collided with his rigid view of inerrancy, he became an agnostic, feeling that if the God of the Bible actually existed, He would have preserved His Word through all time.

Ehrman's story is sad, and his popular work Misquoting the Words of Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why has the potential of leading naive Christians down the same path. Even more sad is that Ehrman's path was unnecessary. Read on ...

VANCE: ... it was Ehrman’s rigidity in what “inerrancy” must mean in the Christian faith which caused the most problems. Being indoctrinated in a particularly fundamentalist rigidity, he was not able to adjust this to something that fit with the evidence and still remained a viable source of belief.

We see this all the time with Christians confrontation with the evidence for an old earth and evolution. There are only three paths: (1) reject the evidence, (2) accept the evidence and reject the Scripture, or (3) accept the evidence and also accept that you might have an incorrect approach to the text, and thus retain the validity and truth of the Scripture.

Ehrman, in his own “scientific” studies could not do 1, since the evidence was too strong. And, he could not get to 3, since his fundamentalist background had embedded a particular notion of inerrancy.

MIKE BEIDLER: You’ve hit the nail on the head with your three options. For too long, I allowed a particular form of inerrancy to dictate my theology. (Oddly enough, I never had an issue with textual criticism nor a need for an “inerrant” English translation.) Rejecting Scripture, of course, was never really an option for me. The third option, however, has been incredibly freeing, especially since I began studying John H. Walton’s material on ANE cultures and cosmologies, D. S. Russell’s studies on apocalyptic literature, and scientific evidence regarding “origins.”

At the risk of sounding cliché, there is a way to have your cake and eat it too. Too often, we can’t eat the cake because we’ve chosen (knowingly or unknowingly) to interpret the text (as well as understand the nature of the Bible) through a modern, 21st-century lens. A vast majority of us end up forcing modern, scientifically-precise, it-has-to-hold-up-in-a-court-of-law requirements on the Scriptures, which were written by a people with a completely different manner of understanding and communicating “scientific” and theological truth. Since attempting to understand the Scripture through the eyes of the original recipients as well as authorial intent, my view of the nature of God’s Word has been enriched to a level I never thought possible.

So, how does this relate to textual criticism? While I fully appreciate the science (art?) of textual criticism and its quest to attain (as closely as possible) the original God-breathed words for man’s benefit (2 Tim 3:16), my views on the inerrancy and/or infallibility of Scripture no longer demand a static text. God’s Word is much bigger than strokes of a pen on parchment.

Covenant 102

In my effort to garner tons of posts (hopefully more than James Kessler's 133 posts -- and counting -- on his "Covenant 101" blog), I've decided to title this particular blog "Covenant 102," based on a suggestion by Tim Martin (albeit a modified suggestion). Who's first???

Preaching Preterism at the Evangelical Theological Society

I, Mike Bennett, and Ken Davies (along with some other out-of-town preterists) had the distinct pleasure of working an exhibit booth sponsored by Ed Stevens' International Preterist Association at the 59th annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference this past week. It was a wonderful time of fellowship, spirited debate, and evangelism. Here are some of my observations from this unique experience:

(1) Ed Stevens is one of the most generous men I've ever met. At his own expense, we gave away nearly 100 copies of James Stuart Russell's The Parousia to ETS members, seminary students, and representatives from numerous Christian book publishers. Following the conclusion of the conference on Friday, about 20 Southern California preterists met at Panera Bread in Point Loma for a time of fellowship. Half-way through the evening, Ed gave away door prizes in the form of books and other teaching materials. There is no doubt that Ed is dedicated to reaching others with the good news of the New Covenant as understood through the lens of fulfilled eschatology, and I wish him all the best with his ministry. (Ed, if you're reading this, I look forward to fellowshiping with you again in the future! Love ya, brother!)

(2) The preterist message was well-received! The IPA booth was well-placed near the entrance to the exhibit hall and sandwiched between the translators of the outstanding NET Bible and InterVarsity Press (IVP), and across from Crossway Books. Of the hundreds of people passing our booth, only one or two individuals mocked the message we were preaching. Most others were intrigued by our hermenuetic and stopped by a number of times to ask questions and discuss relevant Bible passages. I discussed preterism with one bright, young seminary student for over an hour! Even the NET Bible folk were intrigued by my "preterist conversion" story. As expected, many of the questions dealt with the new heavens and earth, the nature of the resurrection and/or the rapture, the relevancy of the Bible in a post-parousia age, and "what now?"

(3) Tommy Ice's son is one sharp kid. Currently a college student at Liberty University, David was representing a small company specializing in building personal websites. He and I spoke at length about creationism and different methods of interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis. (Out of respect, I didn't broach the topic of eschatology, which probably threw him for a loop!) I fully intend to stay in touch with him.

(4) I met several of my theological heroes, such as Daniel L. Bock, Daniel B. Wallace, and J. P. Moreland. I even had the opportunity to speak to Evangelicalism's most prominent proponent of open theism, Gregory A. Boyd. As we discussed his excellent book Letters from a Skeptic, he informed me that he was extremely close to becoming a full preterist! We didn't have time to get into the hows and whys of his journey toward fulfilled eschatology, but he invited me to email him and continue the discussion. (Any open theist preterists out there?)

(5) At the Friday night gathering, Jeff Vaughn (aka JL) took some time to discuss his and Tim Martin's take on "covenantal creation" and create awareness of their upcoming book Beyond Creation Science, which is currently in the hands of a typesetter. Looking forward to seeing the finished product, guys!

(6) If you're already a book hound, don't attend one of these conferences, lest you suffer wrath from your spouse. The publishers hock their wares at 40-50% off retail price! Every time I took a break from the IPA booth, I returned with another bag full of books. I even received some free books from NavPress and Canon Press in return for copies of The Parousia. If you do have the guts to attend, be sure to bring your credit card and arm yourself with the following excuses, courtesy of IVP:



Well, that's it for now! After more reflection, I might have a few more observations to post. ;-)

Ann Coulter: Christians Are Perfected Jews?

Recently, on CNBC's "The Big Idea," host Donny Deutsch had the following conversation with Ann Coulter. Before you read it, however, I ask you to consider and answer this question: Is Ann Coulter right? Is she completely wrong? Or, if she is partially correct, in which parts is she right or wrong?

Moreover, are Coulter's words anti-Semitic? If not, why not? (After you consider your answer, check out this article by Jewish columnist Dennis Prager.)

************************************************
DEUTSCH: Christian -- so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But -- so we would be better if we were - if people -- if there were no Jews, no Buddhists --

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by --

DEUTSCH: -- in this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: -- you know, liberals on diversity --

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And --

DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.

COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire Seinfeld episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.

DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some Seinfeld episode? OK.

COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches -- the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly -- you're too educated, you can't -- you're like my friend in --

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean --

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" --

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think -- we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners --

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued -- when you say something absurd like that, there's no --

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself --

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more Big Idea when we come back.

[...]

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said -- your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said -- don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic --

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought.

Star Wars and the Origin of Sin

I'm in the process of finishing up a 19-novel Star Wars series titled "The New Jedi Order," which takes place 25-30 years after 1977's Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope. What is most unique about this series (and this novel in particular) is its emphasis on the nature of the Force, the philosophy of its use, and the origin of the dark side. The following extract from Star Wars: The New Jedi Order—The Unifying Force (p. 268) features Jedi Master Luke Skywalker speaking with his nephew Jedi Knight Jacen Solo, son of Han Solo and Princess Leia.

"... the dark side is real, because evil actions are real. Sentience gave rise to the dark side. Does [the dark side] exist in nature? No. Left to itself, nature maintains the balance. But we've changed that. We [sentient beings] are a new order of consciousness that has an impact on all life. The Force now contains light and dark because of what thinking beings have brought to it. That's why balance has become something that must be maintained—because our actions have the power to tip the scales." [emphasis in original]

If The Beatles Were Preterists ...

To the tune of The Beatles' "Yesterday" ...

Alternate lyrics by Mike Beidler.

Heresy,
All my troubles seem so close to me,
Orthodox friends, they all run and flee,
Oh, I believe ... AD 70.

Suddenly,
I'm not teachin' it like Grant Jeffrey,
Excommunication's set me free,
Oh, heresy came suddenly.

Why I had to go
I don't know, they wouldn't say.
I said, "Rapture's wrong,
So is Jenkins and LaHaye."

Heresy,
Got me a new eschatology,
"The End Is Comin' Soon!" no more for me,
Oh, I believe ... AD 70.

Why I had to go
I don't know, they wouldn't say.
I said, "Rapture's wrong,
So is Jenkins and LaHaye-ay-ay-ay."

Heresy,
Got me a new eschatology,
"The End Is Comin' Soon!" no more for me,
Oh, I believe ... AD 70.

Mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm.

Promoting Silence in a Conversation

"It is no great thing to get on well with good and docile men, for that is naturally pleasant to all people, and all men gladly have peace with those and most love those who are agreeable. But to live peacefully with evil men and with impertinent men who lack good manners and are illiterate and rub us the wrong way—that is a great grace, and a manly deed, and much to be praised, for it cannot be done save through great spritiual strength.

Some people can be quiet themselves, and live quietly with others, and some cannot be quiet themselves, nor permit others to be quiet; they are grevious to others—they are more grevious to themselves."

— Thomas à Kempis (1380-1471), Of the Imitation of Christ (Richard Whitford's 1530 translation, pp. 79-80)

''... on earth as it is in heaven.''

Frederick Ward Kates (b. 1920) once said, "The purpose of religion—at any rate, the Christian religion—is not to get you into heaven, but to get heaven into you." In what ways is God's Kingdom made manifest in your life? What spiritual habits do you practice in order to channel the Comforter?

Biblical Inerrancy: What's Your Definition?

James I. Packer (b. 1926) wrote:

When evangelicals call the Bible "inerrant," part at least of their meaning is this:

that, in exegesis and exposition of Scripture and in building up our biblical theology from the fruits of our Bible study, we may not

(1) deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize, anything that the biblical writers teach, nor

(2) discount any of the practical implications for worship and service that their teaching carries, nor

(3) cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by allowing ourselves to assume that the inspired writers were not necessarily consistent either with themselves or with each other.

It is because the word "inerrant" makes these methodological points about handling the Bible, ruling out in advance the use of mental procedures that can only lead to reduced and distorted versions of Christianity, that it is so valuable and, I think, so much valued by those who embrace it.

Thoughts?

Online Ancient Christian Commentary on Prophetic Texts

Even in a day of overdone distinctions, one might point out that interpretations are not properly to be classified as historical or dogmatic, but as true or false. If they are false, it does not matter whether they be called dogmatic or historical; and if they are true, they may quite well be both.

— James Denney [1856-1917]

There's considerable resistance by futurists to the preterist paradigm on the basis of its alleged lack of historical support by the Early Church Fathers and theologians throughout church history.

I thought it might be interesting to talk about the possible creation of an online prophecy commentary in the same vein as InterVarsity Press' current Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series (here's a link to the Revelation commentary) to show how historical the preterist view actually is. The online commentary need only provide the particular prophetic passage and then wiki-style users can simply add quotations and provide author (b. and d. dates), work (publisher and pub date), and page numbers (as appropriate). In addition, the quotations would be arranged chronologically.

Any thoughts on how useful a commentary like this would be? Would it duplicate effort found elsewhere, or would a wiki-style commentary make previously-researched material easier to access and modify?

On Being a Christian Muslim

From the Absurd category:

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=29247
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56244
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6180

Stories like this one bring up many questions regarding the compatibility of preterism with other sub-ologies within Christian tradition and thought. Not one to settle for inconsistencies within my own faith, I've still found no reason to abandon Reformed soteriology. Regarding young-earth creationism, however, people like Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn, as well as Dave Snokes, have brought to light serious questions of incompatibility, at least in my own mind. To be sure, the gears are turning ...

By the Grace of God ...

I am not what I ought to be. I am not what I want to be. I
am not what I hope to be. But still, I am not what I used to
be. And by the grace of God, I am what I am.

— John Newton [1725-1807]

USA Today's Preterist Columnist

I stayed recently at the Four Points Sheraton in downtown Portland, Oregon, supervising an anti-terrorism mission to provide force protection for several US and Canadian warships participating in the 2007 Rose Festival. A part of my routine over the 10-day period was to read the complimentary USA Today that was shoved under my door daily. What struck me silly was an opinion piece found in the Monday, 04 June, issue of the nationally distributed periodical. Written by USA Today columnist Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Baptist preacher and well-known defender of religious liberties, the piece discusses Christians and environmentalism ... and adds a healthy dose of preterism to the discussion!

I quote the relevant portion:

... most Americans appear reluctant to begin making the sacrifices necessary to address global warming. Evangelical Christian leaders in particular seem to be dragging their heels. So, why the hesitation?

...

There's also the fact that for many Christians, the Bible appears contradictory on the subject of global warming. Didn't Jesus say there would be wars and rumors of wars, famine and earthquakes before he could return? Isn't that exactly what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is predicting? For millions of Christians, the world's downward spiral into political and ecological chaos may appear a necessary prerequisite to the second coming of Christ.


The problem with this fabled passage from Matthew 24 is that few of us bother to read what comes immediately before it. Jesus was responding to a series of questions. One was about his so-called second coming and the end of the age, but first and foremost was the disciples' inquiry about the destruction of the Jewish temple. Jesus had just shocked the disciples by telling them that soon "there will not be left here one stone standing upon another."


The temple was indeed destroyed after the Jewish rebellion some 40 years later. And, in those chaotic days before the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem, most of the things Christians associate with Christ's second coming came to pass. War, famine, messianic pretenders, the whole bit. As for his second coming, Jesus said it would be like a "thief" in the night. Thieves seldom announce their entry.

Wow. Certainly, "Buzz" isn't consistent with his hermeneutic, but this is an awesome preteristic message for the masses!