I am the product of a sub-emerging evangelical theological conversation which recognizes the validity of both the postmodern and modern ethos.

Go ahead, label me!

But read me first.

Those who are like me find themselves in an ocean of hope and despair holding on to two anchors at once. The modern anchor sinks because of its reliance on absolute certainty in all things. The postmodern anchor sinks because of its lack of certainty about anything. We hope to keep both anchors from setting so that theological progression can continue, all the while trying to keep themselves from going down with either (which is not easy).

You might be a like me if . . .

1. You don’t take yourself too seriously.
2. You do take Christ very seriously.
3. When you are around modernists, you become postmodern.
4. When you are around postmodernists, you become modern.
5. You love to hate the emerging church.
6. You hate to love the emerging church.
7. You don’t have everything figured out.
8. (But you do have a lot figured out).
9. You complain about how much complaining there is in the church.
10. You divide with people because they are too divisive.
11. Yet you think Calvinism is just a mature spelling for G-O-S-P-E-L.
12. You have John Piper, Team Pyro, and Justin Taylor along with Scot Mcknight, Dan Kimball, and Andrew Jones in your RSS feed . . . and you like them all!
13. You believe that the essentials of Christianity have to do with the person and work of Jesus Christ.
14. You will fight like a dog for non-essentials and your heart rate is not affected. 
15. You have been though The Theology Program and you survived.
16. Your least favorite theological subjects are eschatology (end times) and creation/evolution because everyone thinks they have all the details of the past and future figured out when you cannot even figure out the details of the present
17. Oh, and one last thing: You cut your own hair and often have the guard fall off only to discover that you have shaved yourself bald. Yet you stubbornly continue cut your own hair so to your wife’s chagrin.

Score yourself. How many did you identify with?

If you identified with all 17=ontological unity (you are me, I am you)

If you identified with 15 to 17=we were separated at birth

If you identified with 13 to 14=good friends

If you identified with 10 to 12=call me sometime

If you identified with 7 to 9=I will call you sometime

If you identified with 4 to 5=we can just email

If you identified with 1 to 3=but you cannot have my email

If you identified with 0=let’s just have a postmortem relationship, eh?

A few items:

Parchment and Pen: One Year Later
It has been one year (give or take) since I started the Parchment and Pen blog. Many people said “Don’t do it!” It will eat up your time. They were certainly right; It does eat up a lot of time. But I think that it has been worth it. Blogs are odd. It is a scary thing to put yourself out in the public in such a way. Sometimes you say to yourself “Why did I hit publish.” For compulsive personalities like me, blogs are dangerous. Nevertheless, when at their best, there are not many better ways of communication. Special thanks to Michael Spencer for all his support. I am not sure we would have the audience we do without him.

To all our readers: Thank you.

My Mother
I have not given much of an update on mom recently. I guess that it is one of those things that may come across as pouting, and I don’t want it to be seen as such. Mom is still the same. Two years after the stroke (this month—can you believe it has been so long?) she still can’t really speak, no walking, and has the mentality of a 5 year old at 58 (at least it seems that way most of the time).

Since she is too young to get the financial assistance for a nursing home, we divide the time between me and my sisters. That is why I moved here in Oct. I spend Fridays with her. It is “my day.” It is not really, as of yet, a burden. I enjoy spending time with her and my sister. We go to Old School Bagel in Okla City EVERY Friday at 1pm. (If you are in town, come by and see us. We sit at the booth.)

Dad is bad, but that is just dad. He needs to get mom in a nursing home, but he will still not accept this. He would have to sell his house and change his way of living in order to afford it. He won’t. Mainly he is just in denial. I don’t blame him, but I am hard on him about it. He will not listen. Hence, all of our backs are out and getting worse. Mom has gained a lot of weight. She is hard to lift and it is awkward trying to get her to the bathroom. Kristie, my sister, was rolling her down the road in the wheel chair today and my mother’s coat got caught in the chair. They were going down a hill very fast and the wheels stopped and my mother went flying out. She is OK, but my sister has cried all day about it. Sigh…

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
We sent out a plea last week for support for Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. The response was incredible. We made up our dept in one week. This puts me in a better mood. My wife is relieved, although I have learned to keep most financial stuff to myself.Â

RMM has been incorporated for two years now and I have yet to miss a payday….well, completely miss. Thank you all much for contributing. It is hard being in a ministry such as this, but I am really learning about how the Lord works—slowly, but faithfully.

I started teaching this week at Crossings Community Church. What a great group of people. I think I scared them, but hopefully in a good way. I think I scare everyone at first. The first class of Introduction to Theology is scary, but that is another story.

The Theology Program is expanding into many more churches. Our biggest problem, if you want to think of it this way, is how to moderate the growth. Rhome spends most of his time dealing with other churches, while I am the wild-eyed visionary that has 12 new ideas a week. We consider .05 of them. Buggers. (Oh, and “Buggers” is my new word).

Personal odds and ends:

• I think I love the Lord more this week than last. I hope. I sure have been talking with him a lot.
• I drink one of those Starbucks bottled coffees each day. My daughters love them. They are supposed to be able to get one every Friday for rewards for doing their chores WITHOUT BEING TOLD. They have not achieved this goal yet. I usually give in as Kristie serves as their advocate.
• We are all obsessed with American Idol around here. We talk about it every Friday over bagels. Me, my wife, and my two sisters all think Michael …. Something (can’t remember his last name—from Australia) should win, but that other guy Whatshisname that sang Billy Jean was awesome last week.
• Connection Gate, our online communications program, is due out in the next couple of months. We will see.
• Let me see if I can get some recent pics of the family.

Ok, here are the most recent pics of all of my kids:

Katelynn (8 years old), by first daughter and her dog Muffin.

Will (4 years old), my first son.

And finally, Zach (1 year old), my second son.

That covers it.

One more thing. Considering my obsession with super heroes, I could not resist.

I thought that this was supposed to be secret?

Leadership is a hot topic today. Colleges and universities and seminaries and churches and Christian organizations of all varieties are developing leadership programs. I cite my own denomination, the Christian Reformed Church. To celebrate its 150th anniversary, it is raising millions of dollars to launch a leadership institute. My alma mater Baylor University has recently established a school of leadership. The list goes on and on.

I myself jumped on the bandwagon several years ago when I proposed a course on leadership at Calvin Seminary where I was teaching. I would approach the topic from a biblical, historical, and biographical perspectives; seeking to identify role models. It was not until I was teaching through the course a second time that I realized what a crock this whole topic is. It’s phony from beginning to end especially as it relates to biblical models.

That Jesus was a failed leader both by example and by teaching is something we already know at least unconsciously. Jesus taught that the first shall be last; take up your cross and follow me; to be a minister or to be great in the eyes of God is to be a servant. His teaching on leadership was upside-down and backwards. Indeed, it was no leadership teaching at all. We all know that, but we easily try to fix Jesus’ teachings or put the prefix servant in front of the word leadership. But the effort falls short.

It falls short because with Jesus we get a lot more than theory. He modeled his teachings. He was a servant, to be sure. But he was not, I argue, a servant leader.

First, let me seek to define leader or leadership. I’m not breaking any new ground here. I look to others. Malcolm Forbes offers the most basic stock definition: "No one™s a leader if there are no followers.†Peter Drucker agrees: “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.â€

Others have emphasized influence. But we all know there are many people of influence – scientists, authors, musicians – who have great influence but are not leaders in any sense of the term. The dictionary examples of a leader are typically conductor, guide, and military officer.

Let’s look at Jesus within the framework of this definition and these examples.

True, Jesus had 12 disciples who were followers. But 12 is a low number by leadership standards, and the followers were fickle at best. One betrayed, one denied, one doubted, the rest hid out. None of the followers have a profile that a conductor, a guide, or military officer would put up with.

As for the leader, Jesus is executed in his early thirties. Not exactly a demonstration of leadership success.

This model of leader/followers is hardly one that would serve today’s leadership seminars. Something is dramatically wrong with the picture. Plain and simple, Jesus was a failed leader though it’s critical to point out that Jesus did not aspire to leadership.

But Jesus has become the ultimate model for many Christian leadership gurus today. Books and websites abound. The Leadership Lessons of Jesus: A Timeless Model for Today’s Leaders by Bob Briner and Ray Pritchard is just one example. Of hundreds of websites one is "58 leadership secrets of Jesus."

Both the secular world and the Christian community have drifted far off course on the matter of leadership. That is the subject of my soon-to-be published book: Leadership Reconsidered. My emphasis in that book is not merely the wrong-headedness of leadership training, but the right emphasis that must take its place that of legacy.

The heart of the gospel and how it relates to us is not that we should follow Jesus who shows us a pattern for leadership. Indeed, leaders are as fickle as are followers. News stories of political and business and religions leaders feature that profile every day of the week. A leader’s star rises as quickly as it falls.

Legacy is what matters. Obviously no one will every match Jesus in the realm of legacy. But as we contemplate our pilgrimage in life, we must get over the self-serving concept of leadership and set our hearts and minds on legacy.

According to N.T. Wright, justification is a subset of election, which, in turn, is an issue of ecclesiology. Justification therefore is intrinsically tied to being a part of the covenant community. Jews were by definition part of this community and, because of this, they were justified de facto. In Wright’s understanding, the Jews of Paul’s day, including Paul himself, were not seeking to justify themselves by their own works, but to remain a part of the covenant community. Therefore, the traditional Augustinian/Reformed view of justification by works vs. justification by faith is not what is a issue with Paul. In other words, the Jews never believed that they were justified by works. Wright believes that justification = “To be declared righteous due to initiation into the covenant community,” not “To be de righteous do to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”

Piper argues that such a definition cannot bear the weight of the New Testament text, especially Paul. Using Romans 3 and 4, Piper demonstrates that justification is not a recognition of a status with in a covenant community, but a declaration of a position before God. Piper notes, “. . . [J]ustification does not denote or mean covenant membership, but it does imply covenant membership” (p. 44).

This leads to a further review of Wright’s understanding of Justification in Chapter three. Here Piper gets to the heart of the issue admitting that the nuances of the covenant community definition of justification are not as serious, but provide a framework for Wright’s understanding of ultimate justification being yet future.

This eschatological view of justification departs from the traditional forensic view in that justification is not something that people acquire when they trust in Christ, but that which people may acquire during judgment. The vindication of God does not come at the cross, but during the final judgment. While the judgment came at the cross, those who place their faith in Christ will not be ultimately justified until the end. This justification provides us with a status, but not a reality of being righteous as God is righteous. This is in distinction to the traditional Protestant understanding of imputation, where Christ’s righteousness is declared to be ours immediately upon faith in Christ.

Piper defends the traditional view of imputation by posing that Wright fails to see righteousness not only in terms of what God does, but who God is (p. 63). Piper defines God’s righteousness as “his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory.” This righteousness is given to us through imputation.

I agree with Piper. While I appreciate the questions that Wright brings to the table, it seems that he fails to understand the theological implications that are tied to the doctrine of imputation. Imputation has necessary connections to Christ’s role as the second Adam. Our identification with the first Adam is actual and forensic at the same time. We are born sinful with respect to our nature and have been declared guilty because the human race, in Adam, has been declared guilty, and we are part of that race. In this sense, we are hidden in the first Adam’s unrighteousness. Call this imputation, call it identification, call it headship, call it whatever seems best (terminology is not something I would die for), but we must understand how we are connected to Adam outside of Christ. We are found “in Adam” without justification.

Romans 5 is certainly not about our identification with a covenanted community, but with a representative head. This is where I really don’t understand why Wright parts ways with the doctrine of imputation. Christ, as the second Adam, serves as our new representative head. I guess one could say that Christ is the covenanted community just as was Adam, but this would just be semantics and would fail to sufficiently recognize the differences.

Whatever the Jews believed at the time, Paul sought to correct this by showing that the headship of Adam was the problem not only of the Jews, but the entire human race. Death was a result of the sin of Adam. Righteousness and life is the result of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race, so is Christ’s righteousness imputed to all who believe, in the same way. That is the key. If it is not the same way, then Paul’s argument of Romans 5 makes no sense.

Since Christ is the second Adam, we must be found “in Him” by a legal forensic declaration. While we don’t have a righteousness that is our own, we have been declared righteous (justified), through the imputation of an alien righteousness. Without this imputation, we would forever be identified with the first Adam and, hence, his sin, resulting in death.

In this, the imputation is both a biblical and theological necessity.

I don’t think we have misread Paul, even if our understanding of this is not perfect. I think that their is a sense which we can talk about “future justification” as a final vindication of the forensic justification that has already taken place.

Is the Roman Catholic Church unorthodox?  

From the perspective of a Protestant understanding of “orthodoxy,” relations to other traditions can vary. Protestants can be found who believe that any deviation from the developments and articulations found in the Reformation, particularly with regard to justification by faith alone, amounts to abandoning the Gospel completely.

The question is this: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

If a denial of sola fide produces a different Gospel in an absolute sense, then it is, by definition, unorthodox in the most severe way. However, if it deviates from the Gospel causing a distortion of the Gospel, but not a destruction of the Gospel, can it be said to be unorthodox to the degree that the Catholic church is a heretical institution?

Please understand, the question is not whether someone can deny sola fide and be saved. Most Evangelicals would (should?) agree that we are saved by faith alone, not necessarily by our belief or confession in salvation by faith alone.

The question is Can the true Gospel be proclaimed when sola fide is denied or ignored? Is sola fide so central to the Gospel that its neglect or denial amounts to a heterodox Gospel?

Those who answer in the affirmative are going to have to recognize the difficulties with such a stand. If the absence of sola fide from the Gospel represents an absolute destruction of the Gospel, what of the church before the Reformation that had yet to articulate salvation in such a way? I know that Thomas Oden has done much to show that the early church did hold to an unarticulated view of sola fide, and I think he has done a good job of showing that this problem is not as severe as some people make it out to be (see Oden, The Justification Reader). Yet, at the same time, it is hard for me to read through the early church and see this without definite qualifications. We need to recognize that the pre-reformation church, even the pre-Roman Catholic church, did hold to beliefs that would be outside of the orthodoxy produced by a Reformed view of sola fide. For example, the early church held to a primitive belief in baptismal regeneration. As well, we often find the blurring of the lines between justification and sanctification.

Therefore, if we were to say that the Reformation’s restoration, development, and articulation of justification by faith alone was a restoration of that which was completely corrupt beforehand, we will have some issues.

Was the Gospel proclaimed in the sixteenth century for the first time?

Did true and full orthodoxy begin in the mind of Luther? 

I think that there is a more reasonable option here. This option follows the idea of progressive orthodoxy that we have talked about in previous posts. It allows for corruption of orthodoxy, to some degree, as corruption is a vital part of its evolution to maturity.

Here is the chart from the last post:

Let me now advance my thesis a bit.

With regards to the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, I would see the orthodoxy produced as a distorted orthodoxy. This distortion, while serious, does not amount to an absolute departure from Christianity. In other words, the Gospel can still be found in Roman Catholic orthodoxy, even if the “fullness of the Gospel” is lacking.

Their development (along with that of the Eastern Church) may look like this (please don’t try to dissect all the letters and such; that would be over-analyzing my intentions):

Notice a few things:

Early Church: The early church was orthodox. Some doctrines were developed, matured, and articulated more than others. This is the difference in the capital letters and lower case. Capital represents maturity (e.g. the work of Christ). Lower case represents an orthodox belief, even if it remained immature. The italics represents distorted orthodoxy. In other words, there were certain beliefs in the early church that had the essence of truth, but, because of immaturity, could often misrepresent its later matured form (e.g. the atonement as a ransom to Satan).

Eastern Church: Here, I primarily mean the Eastern Orthodox church. Notice that they are also orthodox. The further developments represented by the “TH” show the progress and maturing of certain doctrines (e.g. person of Christ and the Trinity). The lower case show an undeveloped doctrine (e.g. salvation) and the italics show a distorted understanding (e.g. atonement).

Roman Catholic: Notice here, the difference. Now we have a misspelling of “orthodox.” This represents the additions that the Roman Catholic church brought to the table that, from a Protestant perspective, distorts the Gospel in a more severe way. These additions might include the infallibility of the Pope, Marian dogmas, additions of ”mortal” sins, and, a definite articulation of process justification along with an absolute denial of sola fide. The distortions would include sacredotalism, depository of grace, the institutionalized church, and the like. But, as you can see, much of Christian orthodoxy remains in tact in Roman Catholicism. So much, in fact, that from my perspective, it would be wrong to call them “unorthodox” in an absolute sense. They just have a distorted orthodoxy that, when read, can still be seen as orthodox.

Reformed Protestantism: Obviously you will see I believe that Protestantism has the best articulation of orthodoxy, even if it remains imperfect. There are definitely some distortions (possibly ecclesiology) and some areas that need development (we must always leave room for such). But in the end, I believe that this represents the fullest representation of orthodoxy and, hence, the Gospel message.

Back to the question: Does a denial of sola fide (justification by faith alone) amount to the production of a different Gospel and to what degree?

The answer is yes and no. “Yes” in that it amounts to the production of a distorted or undeveloped Gospel, and, in this sense, it is different from the fullness of the Gospel (like that of the Galatian Judizers). “No” in the sense that its denial does not completely destroy the Gospel beyond recognition. For example, I believe that the Mormons have a different Gospel to the degree that orthodoxy is destroyed beyond recognition. If they were on the chart, their orthodoxy would look something like this: “XXoMOXY.” It may have some of the same elements, but it is too different and too distorted to find the truth Gospel (primarily because of the absence of the God-man). The same could be said for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Catholics are different. I don’t believe that Catholics are orthodox to the degree that Protestants or Eastern Orthodox are, but, nonetheless, orthodoxy can be found in their Gospel. They do have the God-man and this means a lot.

Once again, you must remember, this is looking at these things from an Evangelical Protestant perspective. I am an Evangelical Protestant. So don’t give me any cries of “Arrogance!” I don’t believe Evangelicals are perfect, but I do believe we have the fullest articulation of the Gospel. If I did not, then I would go to the tradition that did!

At least, this is where I am at today.

Hopefully, you can now see how my understanding of how progressive orthodoxy can account for the development of doctrine in the face of many difficulties.

Here is an ALR New Release about the CSNTM find:

DALLAS, March 25, 2008 - Normally, two or three New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek are discovered each year.

Last summer, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) found a treasure trove of them during a trip to Albania. The Center, based in the Dallas suburb of Frisco, Texas, devotes itself to the high-resolution digital preservation of these early copies of the New Testament.

Scholars tried for decades to gain access to the National Archive in Tirana with little success, partly because Albania is a former police state. Until now, only two manuscripts of the 13 there known to Western scholars had been photographed, both with microfilm many years ago.

Recently though, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, the CSNTM director, received permission to send a team of four men to Albania to photograph the manuscripts with state-of-the-art digital methods. By the end of their first day in Tirana in July, they realized there were more than 13 manuscripts - far more.

"When the news came back across the Atlantic, I was stunned," Wallace said.

The catalog at the National Archive listed 47 New Testament manuscripts, and at least 17 were unknown to Western scholars. Evidence suggests that some of the other manuscripts had been presumed lost elsewhere in Albania, but no final determination has been made.

The oldest manuscript in the collection is Codex Beratinus, written in the sixth century. It contains only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark today.

The codex is the ancestor of the modern book form, replacing the scrolls and wax tablets of earlier times. Early Christians popularized the codex, adopting it for their scriptures and other writings.

Codex Beratinus was dyed in purple; only a handful of purple biblical codices exist today — with silver and gold letters on it.

The staff at the National Archives said that during World War II, Hitler tried to obtain this particular document. Several monks and priests risked their lives to hide the manuscript. Today, it is registered with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a world treasure.

Among the other notable finds were four manuscripts, dating from the 11th century on, that provided more information on a familiar Biblical controversy. The story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is included in most Bibles today, but many scholars doubt its authenticity. These four manuscripts either have the story at the end of John or lack it altogether, suggesting it is something of an add-on.

Wallace says that no basic teaching of the Bible such things as the virgin birth and the deity of Christ — has been compromised by such study but that some of the particulars have been brought into question.

When studying these manuscripts, the age is important, but so is the pedigree (which previous manuscript it was copied from.) Experts like Wallace, also a Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, strive to trace the antecedents of a Biblical manuscript much like an expert in genealogy would reconstruct a family tree.

It’s a daunting task.

"It is like working on a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing," Wallace said. "But with the discovery of new manuscripts, more of the pieces make sense. And the result is we are getting closer to reconstructing the original wording of the New Testament in the few places where there still is question."

Wallace has personally examined manuscripts at the base of Mount Sinai in Egypt; The Vatican; Cambridge University, Oxford University and the British Library in England; Dresden, Cologne and Berlin in Germany; and Florence, Italy, along with several other sites in the United States and abroad .

In its five years of existence, CSNTM has photographed manuscripts in, among other places, Istanbul, Turkey; Patmos, Greece and Muenster, Germany at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. The Institute is the clearinghouse for original manuscripts. When a “new†manuscript comes to light, it is assigned a unique number certifying the discovery. To date, some 5,700 manuscripts containing about 1.3 million pages have been catalogued.

Photographing these manuscripts is painstaking work. Wallace says that the average Greek New Testament manuscript has about 550 pages. Optimally, a team can shoot 1,200 to 1,800 pages a day, depending on the size and condition of the manuscripts. Members of the team take extraordinary measures, including wearing white cotton gloves, not to damage the manuscripts.

The bill is high — $6 to $7 a page, when all the expenses are figured in and the task is Herculean. Wallace, not one to set his sights low, wants to photograph all 1.3 million pages of manuscripts known to scholars.

"We’ve photographed several thousand pages, but it’s just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done,"he said. "These manuscripts are deteriorating, and older photographs done on microfilm, a much poorer quality than what we can do today, are deteriorating as well.

"Plus, some manuscripts are lost or stolen, and others are damaged by fire, worms or water. So there is a sense of urgency about this. We have to get these photographed while we have the opportunity."

For more information on the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, visit www.csntm.org.

Note to editors: For more information or to schedule an interview with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, contact Steve Yount of A. Larry Ross Communications at 972.267.1111 or steve@alarryross.com.

For more details, go here.

In my last post on hyper-Preterism, I pondered whether hyper-Preterism is a false Gospel. This post is simply meant to be an interlude as to where I presently stand.

As I may have said before, I have had very little contact with hyper-Preterism. I don’t even know anyone personally who believes such. In a lot of ways, the arguments remind me of flat-earth arguments. As Simon Cowell would say, “Sorry.” From a theological standpoint they seem to be very unsophisticated and short-sighted, without a broad knowledge of theological inquiry. It would seem that they take a few problem issues and suppose “simple” solutions that create many more serious problems that seem to escape their notice. Because of its viability, biblically and historically, I did not even include it in the course on eschatology in The Theology Program. (Plus, I ran out of room.)

I understand that some of people who have responded to my last post are hyper-Preterists and I do appreciate their contribution here as well as the tone they have brought. Please forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you who are hyper-Preterists, I don’t mean to (I am sure you get it a lot). But try as I may to understand and find some degree of legitimacy in your theology, I can’t.

I am still not ready to say that it is damnable, but it seems to me to be an extremely serious departure from some essential elements in the Gospel. No matter how one defines orthodoxy, I cannot find a place for the eschatology of the hyper-Preterist. It is about as far as one can deviate from the beaten path.

You must understand where I come from. I make my living at trying to see the other side of theological issues. People who know me know this. So please don’t see me as simply brushing this option off because I feel uncomfortable with it or am so steeped in my tradition that I am unable to consider it. I by no means claim that I can be completely objective, but I do a pretty good job of training my bias to be my slave. It is one thing that I am really good at.

I will continue to examine this in the future, but have yet to find anyone who is balanced and a hyper-Preterist. When too much passion is thrown in the direction of pushing some eschatological issue—whether dispensational, preterist, or otherwise—red flags go up all over. Perspective must be maintained. If someone were to say, “This is what I believe (i.e. hyper-Preterism), but I very well might be wrong and I am not sure about this issue, it is just where I lean,” then I could take them more seriously. I would see that they recognize the enormous problems created by this system and in this recognition display intellectual honesty. I have yet to find this in the hyper-Preterist camp. What I have seen are booths at ETS giving away hyper-Preterist material saying everyone has wrong eschatology but them. I have seen books and websites that seem to think they have solved all the problems in biblical eschatology with a very simplistic answer. I have seen those who arrogantly and confidently dismiss the body of Christ’s consensual agreement about the future coming of Christ. They do this without fear saying, “We have it all figured out…it is so simple, there is no future resurrection!”

Buggers. How did we all get it so wrong?

To claim, as some often do,the legacy of the Reformers would be a serious misunderstanding of doctrinal development and the issues of the Reformation. The hyper-Preterist option to reform eschatology is not in any way parallel to what the Reformers brought to the table with regards to the doctrines of justification or authority. The Reformers did not produce an antithetical option of a historically established doctrine in either case. They had a great fear of introducing something new or outside of established orthodoxy. What they said was that the instrumental cause of justification, faith, was being blurred by works. They sought to reform this doctrine. As well, they believed that the authority of Scripture was being usurped by the institutional church. They sought to reform this as well. In both cases, their reform, agree with it or not, was not antithetical to any historically established truths. It was a correction, not a new creation.

Hyper-Preterism, on the other hand, is different. Not only does it create more serious biblical problems than it solves, but it produces a completely new eschatology that somehow has escaped the notice of the Church for 2000 years. It is not viable with any view history and the providential care of God over his Church. With this view of history, the Gospel that is produced must draw from the restorationist philosophy of the Jehovah’s Witness’ or Mormons. It says that the Church—Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic, indeed, everyone—have the Gospel wrong with regard to our future hope. The redemption of all things, the coming of Christ, judgment, resurrection, and the new heavens and earth is a past or present reality. We have a new Gospel for you. It is based in Scripture.

Sure it is. I challenge you to find one heresy that does not make such a claim.

In the end, I am still wrestling with to what degree this affects the Gospel. Either way, I do believe that hyper-Preterism corrupts the Gospel seriously, I just don’t know whether it produces a different Gospel to the degree of other “Christian” cults.

God help us to deal with such issues wisely.

P.S. Different issue: Do you think this type of posts will get the anti-Emergents off my back? . . . nah . . . I will get under their skin again later.

John Piper has proven once again that underneath his passionate commitment to exposition and inspiration, his thinking, judgment, and exegetical rigor is not clouded by emotional commitments and traditional brick walls. Piper represents that rare combination between the pastor, theologian, and exegete. His most recent work The Future of Justification is a scholarly defense of the Gospel in the wake that has left many scrambling toward the reinterpretation of justification by NT Wright and those who are mesmerized by the “New Perspective on Paul” (henceforth NPP).

Piper describes the purpose of his book: ”I hope that the mere existence of this book will the stakes in the minds of many and promote serious study and faithful preaching of the gospel, which includes the good news of justification by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16).” Piper believes that the NPP as represented by NT Write is another Gospel. Yet at the same time Piper does not assume that being justified means that one has a right view of Justification: “I do not infer Wright’s defective view of justification to mean that he is not himself justified.” I appreciate his perspective. Yet he is quick to point out the seriousness of departure from a pure representation of the Gospel.

Piper begins by giving eight dangers of Wrights NPP:

1. The Gospel Is Not about How to Get Saved
2. Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian
3. Justification Is Not the Gospel
4. We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification
5. The Imputation of God’s Own Righteousness Makes No Sense At All
6. Future Justification Is on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived
7. First-century Judaism Had Nothing of the Alleged Self-Righteous and Boastful Legalism
8. God’s Righteousness Is the Same as His Covenant Faithfulness

The successive chapters deal with each of these dangers. Before this, he give a warning about methodology seeking to address the problem of emphasizing on a particular exegetical conclusion without balancing this out systematically with the rest of Scripture. According to Piper, exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are all ultimately necessary in coming to a valid understanding of truth. Implied is a direct warning to Wright and other NPPers to move beyond their focus on cultural analysis of a particular text so that the Scriptures can speak in wholistically. He also warns against the growing tendency among scholars and lay-people alike to disregard traditional understanding in favor of novelty. While not disregarding anything new, Piper says that older establish interpretations must be allowed to glow “with similar exuberance” (p. 37).

Wright essentially believes that “discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot at least in terms of understanding Paul and they have stayed there ever since” (p. 37). In essence, Wright believes that Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have misunderstood Paul, Judaism, and Justification for the last 1500 years. Wrights courage to challenge traditional understandings with “fresh” “innovative” thought is cautioned against by Piper with an admonishment concerning out love affair with novelty: “My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright’s: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries.” He goes on, “The point here is simply to caution that his celebration of ‘delighted innovation’ may confirm a neophilia of our culture that that needs balancing with the celebration of the wisdom of the centuries precisely for the sake of faithfulness to the biblical text.”

I find this exhortation alone worth the price of the book.

Considering people’s “love affair” with the novelty (”neophilia”):

• What examples have you come across with regards to this tendency?
• How have you been tempted to be caught of in this love affair?
• Why do you think we have this tendency to be neophilites?
• What are the promises and perils of neophilia?

More to come.

In a recent episode of Theology Unplugged (solo version), I made a comment that I was challenged to reconsider through an email correspondence. My statement had to do with my position concerning the viability of full or hyper-Preterism as a Christian option. Hyper-Preterism is the belief held by some (a growing number) in the Church concerning the the end times. In essence, it is the belief of hyper-Preterists that all the prophetic events of Scripture have already been fulfilled. Christians are not waiting for the coming of Christ in any sense or the judgment. As well, the resurrection has already happened (in a spiritual sense) and we are living in the new heavens and the new earth. Once we die, our body simply goes to the grave. . . . Bummer, huh?

During this program I said that hyper-preterism is definitely unorthodox, finding its antithetical opposite affirmed from the earliest Christianity until now by all traditions of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant). All Christians have always affirmed that Christ’s return, the resurrection of the dead, judgment, and the new heavens and earth are yet future, even if we disagree about the details.

However, I also said on the program that while this doctrine is an unorthodox or heretical view of eschatology, it is not a doctrine that is damnable in the sense that if one believes it, they are, by definition, not Christian. The reason why I said this is because most hyper-Preterists would not deny the sinfulness of man, Christ’s death, burial, and physical resurrection, and our need for salvation by faith. Heck, most are even Calvinists! Therefore, in my mind, the essence of the Gospel was not at stake.

Dee Dee Warren, who often deals with these issues, wrote to me a very gracious email asking me to reconsider my position. In the email she took the time to give me a concise argument as to why she believes that hyper-Preterism is aberrant to such a degree that it destroys the very essence of the Gospel. Therefore, her position is that if one believes in hyper-Preterism—really believes in hyper-Preterism—then they don’t believe the true Gospel and, therefore, are not saved.

Having corresponded with her, I am beginning to seriously reconsider. I think she may be right and my previous postition wrong.

Dee Dee was kind enough to allow me to post her response here on the blog below. Read it. I would like your thoughts. Is the Gospel of hyper-Preterism a different Gospel to the degree that it destroys the essence of the true Gospel? That is my question for you.

(Please note: this is not simply about defining who is in and who is out, but about the content of the Gospel. It needs to be thought through.)

______________________________

“Michael,

I had listened to your audio program on orthodoxy episode 2, and though I agreed with 99% of what you said, I heard one thing that caused me enough alarm to write. In that program, you said that while hyperpreterism is heretical, it does not deny any foundational Christian beliefs; thus, its adherents are still Christians. Because this is my particular area of specialty, I couldn’t disagree more. I, like you, am very cautious in labeling some beliefs as placing one outside the faith. I, like you, hold to a progressive orthodoxy as you explained in episode 3. Therefore, I am appealing to you on the basis of our shared understanding.

Thus, the question then becomes, what are foundational Christian beliefs? I think we can all agree that the Trinity, bodily resurrection of Jesus, and Jesus’ atoning death on the cross all belong in that category. However, all of the earliest confessions of the historic church, be they in teachings or in formalized statements such as in the Apostles’ Creed, affirm the future bodily resurrection of the dead, the future bodily return of Christ, and the future final judgment. One cannot deny those things and be said to have a Christian belief system. This isn’t simply a matter of arguing about the timing of "the rapture." I would argue, that even without formally recognizing those other categories, hyperpreterism denies the Gospel itself.

I have laid out the case for this position here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrengrave.html

Hyperpreterist David Green is one of the few hyperpreterists with the backbone to admit this fact. Here is what he said in a response to Keith Mathison:

“Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is definitely (not “possibly,” as I said) a damnable doctrine.”

The only addition I made to that quote is the word "full." It is David himself who retracted his earlier position of "possibly damnable doctrine" to "definitely damnable doctrine." Ever since I pointed that out in 2005, David came under fire from fellow hyperpreterists for his admission. Is it a coincidence that the article in which that appeared can no longer be found? Well, thank God for the Internet Archive from 3/18/05:

see here

Read it, it is enlightening. And David is right. If he is wrong, he is teaching and believing damnable heresy. David had to do some damage control after I pointed this out, and I interacted with his further points here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=41

As we discussed in our emails, Paul specifically condemned a denial of the future bodily resurrection in the strongest possible terms. In 1 Cor 15, denying the bodily resurrection of believers is tantamount to denying the resurrection of Christ. Why? Because He is the prototype, the firstfruits. If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised, for He was one of the dead, and we are still in our sins. How is that? Because Christ is the second Adam, and in hyperpreterism, the second Adam fails at redeeming all that the first Adam lost. The world stays forever in the grip of sin – there is never a consummation. Paul further instructed Timothy that Hymenaeus and Philetus, who said that the resurrection was past, were a gangrenous cancer in the body and causing the shipwreck of the faith of some. This Scripture holds true today – hyperpreterism has caused the shipwreck of faith and churches as its adherents doggedly smuggle it in. I can bring forth the testimony of elders and pastors to substantiate this (it is documented on my site).

Further a logical conclusion of hyperpreterism is that Christ is no longer our mediator. Why? Because His special messianic reign is co-extant with his mediatorial role. Once the resurrection event of 1 Cor 15 happens, Christ gives up that role and all power, authority, and dominion have been placed under His feet – conquered once and for all. Yet in hyperpreterism evil really is never conquered fully once for all – they claim it has, and thus must deny its present reality. This is worthy of Christian Science.

Please I implore you, do not give those holding this cultic teaching the false security of merely being grossly mistaken brethren, and more importantly, don’t expose the brethren to this kind of teaching under the banner of Christian fellowship. This is not Christianity.

On a side note, I had also encouraged you to adopt the terms preterism (or orthodox preterism) and hyperpreterism, for clarity and reality. I have written a piece on this as well at http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrensemantics.html. At that link is also a podcast that I recorded a few weeks ago on this issue of terminology. It is long but very precise and detailed.

I thank you so very much for your time and consideration.

Dee Dee Warren