Eschatology

Why I Don’t Teach Preterism

It looks like I am getting some flack from some passionate Preterists (full or hyper Preterist, not partial preterists) who say I don’t give them a fair shake in The Theology Program material. Saying that I don’t give people a fair shake disturbs me very much as our program prides itself all being “fair and balanced.”

But the truth is that I don’t give Preterism a fair shake in The Theology Program. In fact, I don’t give them a shake at all.

Why? Good question.

Preterism is a funny thing. It is something that causes quite a bit of passionate adherence, the degree to which shows great imbalance. The reason why we don’t cover it in TTP is because it is neither significant historically or contemporary. I know that this might seem like an arrogant statement to those who hold this position, but I feel I am qualified enough to make this assertion in good conscience.

Full- or hyper-preterism is the belief, in essence that Christ has already come, we are in the New Heaven and New Earth, and the resurrection has already happened. It is not taken seriously (at least full-preterism) in any academic circles. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

How Do I Fit Rewards into My Grace Centered Theology? A Theology of Rewards


Rewards in heaven. I hope to have some, but the idea of rewards in heaven is difficult to fit into my theology. My mother used to say, “As long as I make it, I don’t care if I am riding a tricycle.”

Christ taught that there will be rewards in heaven. Each person will receive a certain “bonus” according to his deeds. Listen to this:

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:19-21 19)

What do we do with this? If I was in the hearing of Christ at this time, I would have asked him some questions:

1. “Jesus, how do we get these rewards?”

2. “Jesus, I thought that redemption—everlasting life—was our reward. Are you saying that we are going to have rewards on top of this reward? A ‘heavenly bonus’?”

3. “Jesus, does everyone receive the same rewards?”

Finally, assuming that I know the answer to these first two (which I think I do), I would ask one final question:

4. “Jesus, what is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace?”

If it is of grace then it is not of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Therefore the answer to the first question would have to be “good deeds.” The context to this statement in Matt. 6 is not seeking the rewards of men by pridefully praying or putting on a long face while fasting in public to be seen as holy. Do all things in secret “and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (v. 18). This implies that there will be rewards in addition to eternal life. That takes care of question two.

In answer to question three is easy. That everyone does not get the same amount of rewards is evident. Not only does the passage above necessarily imply this, Luke 19 and the parable of the minas teaches us as much also. As well, Paul instructs us telling the Corinthians that there will be a time of reckoning for our rewards. At this time, some people’s rewards works will be tested and found wanting. Though their salvation is secure, some people’s rewards will be lost. (i.e. They will not get much of a bonus).

“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:12-15)

This would include those people who fast and pray for the praise of men. Their heavenly reward will be burned up, though their life is secure in God. 

How do I fit this into my theology?

It is the fourth question (”What is the decisive cause of these rewards, our works or your grace”) that causes me to ponder with some confusion. Since my salvation is by grace alone without any reference to works (Rom. 11:6), then are we saying that the added bonus we receive after the resurrection is by works?

I see a couple of options:

1. No, not at all. While works are necessary for these rewards, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).

Salvation=God’s grace alone, without the aid of human effort. (Monergistic)

Rewards=God’s grace alone, fueled by necessary human effort. (Synergistic)

This presents significant problems, especially for a Protestant who believes in sola fide (salvation by faith alone—not works), for this is just the same thing that Catholic doctrine says about the relationship of grace and works with regard to salvation. Why can’t they say the same thing about salvation that we can say about rewards and say that it is of grace alone also? Do you see the problem? If not, just replace “rewards” with “salvation” in the option 1 above. Here, let me do it for you.

“While works are necessary for salvation, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, we will not receive any glory for this “bonus.” This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was ultimately responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10).

In other words, if you are going to go this direction with rewards and define “grace alone” in a synergistic way, why would you have problems with Catholic theology that does the same thing with the issue of salvation? “Grace alone” cannot mean two different things can it?

2. Yes, rewards, unlike salvation, are a result of our good works plus grace. In this, we are fully responsible for what we do or don’t do to earn them. It is both an opportunity and a motivation for us to live a life pleasing to the Lord. While the Lord gets the credit for giving us the opportunity and provides us with the strength to earn these rewards, we have the ultimate deciding factor. In this sense, we get what we earned.

Salvation=God’s grace alone, human effort cannot contribute. (Monergistic)

Rewards=God’s grace plus human effort. (Synergistic)

This is the position that I take. I think that it best evidences the Scriptural teaching on the subject. Justification is by grace alone without any regards to human effort. If human effort did play a part, grace is not grace. However, I believe that a theology of rewards must recognize that human effort plays a decisive role in the rewards we receive.

What does this mean? It means that we have an opportunity beyond anything we could ever imagine. When Christ said to store up your treasures in heaven . . . he was serious. Christians should not cop-out on this issue saying “As long as I have my salvation, I am happy. I don’t care about rewards.” This is to deny Christ’s right to use rewards to push us toward good deeds. It is to say that you are “above” Christ’s motivation.

I am very uncomfortable thinking of this in such a way as it does seem self-serving. In a way, what I am saying about rewards is very similar to what Catholics say about salvation. It is God’s grace that gives us the opportunity, but my effort is ultimately determinative.

But if God has commanded us and motived us in such a way, don’t you think we need to conform our thinking to his?

At the very least, this should help you to understand how Catholics can say that salvation is by grace alone, but human effort is necessary.

What say you? What is your theology of rewards?

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel?

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

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”

 
You may be familiar with a book called 90 Minutes in Heaven: A True Story of Death & Life written by Don Piper (not to be confused with John Piper) and Cecil Murphey. It has been on the New York Times and Amazon best seller list since its release in 2004. In the book, Don Piper describes his experience of being in a car wreck where he was pronounced dead by the paramedics. During his death Piper describes the details of his “90 minutes in heaven.”

It is not my intention here to evaluate the validity of near-death experiences in general, but to ask some questions concerning this on in particular. This is not an easy thing for me to do as I believe Don Piper probably sincerely trusts the Lord and truly believes that his experience that evening was a miracle where the God showed him a glimpse of heaven.   Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Do you really believe in hell?


I received a forwarded email today with a short article by David L. Rattigan with the above title.

He begins with a bit of humor: So there’s these two churches I heard of down in Texas. Outside the Presbyterian Church is a sign: “There ain’t no hell.” And just down the road is the Baptist Church, with the sign outside: “The hell there ain’t!”

He makes a good case that evangelicals really don’t believe in hell. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)

In a previous post I put this question forward: Would Christ have died had he not been killed? The question is brought about by our pondering upon Christ’s identification with humanity and humanity’s identification with sin and death. Since Christ did not sin, and death is a result of sin, then wouldn’t it be systematic to believe that Christ would have lived forever in his unresurrected body had He not been 1) killed or 2) relinquished His spirit from His body? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 2)

Dispie chart

Twelve years ago this month I was digging trenches at an archaeological site in Israel. Unfortunately, I dug myself into a theological hole with my fellow excavators before we were even close to removing all the dirt from our square. One old-school professor at an East Coast college was particularly troubled by my admission of dispensational leanings. He gave me the predictable rundown of objections. “Doc, have you read Progressive Dispensationalism by Blaising and Bock?” I asked. “You might be surprised by some of the things that they say,” I quickly added. His response, which I’ll never forget, was both witty and warped: “I’m not interested in progressing in dispensationalism!”

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 1)

Hal Lindsey comic
Introduction: A dispensationalist’s (small “d” intended) Gripe

At Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, we’re unabashedly committed to irenic theology. This means that even when we vehemently disagree with a particular theological stance, we do our very best to describe that stance fairly and squarely. And there’s only one sure-fire way of knowing that we’ve met this objective: anyone who’s adopted the position we’ve put on the table could pull up a chair and say, “It looks good to me!” Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]