Biblical Minimalism and "The History of Preterism"
An Answer to Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times
Controversy
Part
1
(Click
here for Part 2)
By
My Preterist friends have not been able to find any early Preterists in the
early church. I would never say that there is no one in the early church who
taught Preterism. . . Don't be foolish enough to say that nothing is out there
in church history, because you never know. . . . There is early Preterism in
people like Eusebius. In fact, his work The Proof of the Gospel is full
of Preterism in relationship to the Olivet Discourse.1
The above quotation was
uttered in 1995 by Tommy Ice. As we'll see in this and future articles, Tommy
has not taken his own advice.
Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice
have edited a new book dealing with the increasingly successful biblical
criticism of dispensational Premillennialism by Preterist authors.2 Even with
millions of copies of Left Behind being sold and war a factor in the
Of course, this is not to
say that Preterism is competing equally with shelf space carrying prophecy
books in Christian book stores, radio broadcasts predicting that we are, once again,
living in last days, and Bible colleges where dispensational beliefs are a
requirement for graduation.3 Preterist materials are a mere drop in the bucket
compared to the billion-dollar end-time industry that pads the wallets of
failed and poorly studied prophetic prognosticators. Even so, Preterist
arguments are making inroads. Debates are being held on a regular basis around
the country. I've debated at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) and
Moody Bible Institute, two dispensational institutions.4 My book End Times
Fiction, an analysis of LaHaye's Left Behind series, is in its fourth
printing and can be found in most Christian, secular, and online bookstores
along with my Last Days Madness. LaHaye and Ice must be feeling some
heat since they seem threatened enough to deal with Preterism in a full-length
book treatment of the subject. LaHaye feels safe hiding behind a book dealing
with Preterism rather than engaging in a public debate where he would really
have to defend himself.
Pastors are beginning to
reassess their allegiance to the dispensational gods by holding seminars at
their churches to introduce their people to a consistently biblical approach to
Bible prophecy. This would have been unheard of just ten years ago. Radio
audiences are much more sympathetic to Preterist arguments every time I do a
radio interview. I'm amazed at how many people who call in agree with me or at
least are willing to give Preterism a hearing.
The publication of The
End Times Controversy is a great opportunity for Preterists to get out
their message since the authors quote extensively from Preterist works. More
astute Christians will follow the trail of end notes and books listed in the
bibliography and read them. The brighter bulbs in the box will find Preterist
arguments convincing and reject the Dispensationalism of their youth. Many will
be surprised that over the centuries so many sound and trusted Bible expositors
have been Preterists.
To help them along, I will
analyze some of the arguments outlined in The End Times Controversy just
in case they find it difficult find their way through the dispensational swamp.
The Silent History of
Dispensationalism
Ice hopes to rebut Preterism
by writing on "The History of Preterism" to show that Preterism
really doesn't have one. The odd thing about End Times Controversy is
that five of the seventeen chapters use historical arguments to defend Dispensationalism
over against Preterism. As anyone familiar with Dispensationalism knows, there
is scant evidence of anything resembling Dispensationalism prior to 1830.5
Certainly there is no evidence of Dispensationalism among the early church
fathers up until the time of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), which produced
the Nicene Creed, a document that says absolutely nothing about
dispensationalism6 or even premillennialism.7 In fact, as dispensationalist
Patrick Alan Boyd concludes, even Premillennialism is hard to find prior to
Nicea.8 As a result of his study, Boyd admonishes his fellow dispensationalists
"to be more familiar with, and competent in patristics,9 so as to avoid
having to rely on second-hand evidence in patristic interpretation." He
suggests that "it would seem wise for the modern system [of dispensational
Premillennialism] to abandon the claim that it is the historic faith of the
church."10
Ice should have followed
Boyd's counsel and the directives of dispensational icon Charles C. Ryrie
before he decided to take on the historical argument against Preterism. Knowing
that Dispensationalism has a recent history, and critics have used its novelty
against the system, Ryrie responds:
The fact that something was
taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the
canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the
nineteenth century does not make it wrong, unless, of course, it is
unscriptural. . . . After all, the ultimate question is not, Is Dispensationalism--or
any other teaching--historic? But, is it scriptural?11
Agreeing with Ryrie on this
point, we can ask, "After all, the ultimate question is not, Is Preterism--or
any other teaching--historic? But, is it scriptural?" So even if it could
be proved that no form of Preterism can be found in first-century Christian
documents, this in itself does not mean the Bible does not teach it. Ice knows
of this argument, but like so much of The End Times Controversy, he
conveniently leaves out evidence damaging to his position. William Cunningham's
comments on the use of history to establish orthodoxy are instructive. Although
written in the eighteenth century, the following reads as if Cunningham had Ice
in mind:
Where there is not
inspiration, there is no proper authority,--there should be no implicit
submission, and there must be a constant appeal to some higher standard, if
such a standard exist [sic]. The fathers, individually or collectively, were
not inspired; they therefore possess no authority whatever; and their
statements must be estimated and treated just as those of any other ordinary
men. And when we hear strong statements about the absolute necessity of
studying the fathers,--of the great assistance to be derived from them in
interpreting Scripture, and in fixing our opinions,--and of the great
responsibility incurred by running counter to their views, we always suspect
that men who make them are either, unconsciously perhaps, ascribing to the
fathers some degree of inspiration, and some measure of authority; or else are
deceiving themselves by words or vague impressions, without looking
intelligently and steadily at the actual realities of the case.12
While history is important
and interesting to study, it is not authoritative. Just because someone wrote
something nearly 2000 years ago does not make him any more of a biblical
authority than someone writing today. In fact, the case could be made that the
average second-year seminary student has much more material available to him
than any of the early church fathers ever dreamed of having and therefore is
better equipped to evaluate doctrinal issues.
Even proximity to the
apostles is no guarantee of getting it right. There were well-intentioned
people in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem who got things wrong
and needed direct counsel to correct them (Acts 10; Gal. 2:11–14). A special
council had to be called in order to clarify doctrinal issues (Acts 15). Even
so, some still didn't get it (Gal. 1:6–10). Paul had to instruct the
Thessalonian Christians on a matter of eschatology so they would not be
"deceived" (2 Thessalonians 2:1–12). Peter writes that some of the
things Paul wrote are "hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable
distort" (2 Pet.
Given what we know about
the history of doctrinal issues in the infant church, it's surprising that Ice
wants us to believe that the views of uninspired writers, of which we know
almost nothing, writing decades after the death of most of the apostles, are to
be taken as authoritative. What we do know is that the history of prophetic
speculation has been a persistent embarrassment to the church.13 Many of the
writers claimed as prophetic authorities believed that Jesus was coming back in
their day! Ignatius writes around the year A.D. 100 that "the last times
are come upon us,"14 words that echo those of the Apostle Paul when he
writes that "the ends of the ages" had come upon him and the
Thomas Ice: "Biblical
Minimalist"
Ice knows all of this, but
he still plows ahead with an appeal to broad and unsubstantiated historical
claims in his attack on Preterism. As we will see, Ice follows the technique
used by liberal "biblical minimalists":
! Nothing in the Bible can
be considered historical unless the depicted person or event has a parallel
history outside the biblical text.
! Biblical stories are
myth, fiction, or legend unless they can prove to be otherwise by an appeal to
non-biblical sources.
! The New Testament does
not present a Preterist interpretation unless we can find non-biblical writers
who interpret prophetic texts in a Preterist way.
Even though history is not
authoritative, I'm willing to take the historical challenge outlined by Ice. He
maintains that since all the post-New Testament writers of the first century
were consistent futurists, Preterism cannot be true. This is how Ice states the
argument:
It is strange that there is
not one shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these
prophecies [in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation] to have been
fulfilled when Preterists say they were. You would think that if a large body
of Bible prophecy were meant to relate to a specific generation, as Preterists
contend, then the Holy Spirit would have moved in such a way so that
first-century believers would have reached such an understanding.16 However,
there has not yet been found any evidence that indicates that the first-century
church viewed Bible prophecy this way. This fact provides a major problem for Preterism,
which thus far has proved insurmountable.
* * * * *
There is zero indication,
from known, extant writings, that anyone understood the New Testament
prophecies from a Preterist perspective. No early church writings teach that
Jesus returned in the first century.17 If we as God's people are to understand
the prophecies of New Testament in this way, you would think that the Holy
Spirit would have left at least one written record of this.18
I don't know about you, but
I don't need some uninspired, non-canonical document to tell me what the Bible
already says! As we've seen, this is the argument of "biblical
minimalists": I won't believe what's in the Bible unless you can show me the
same material "outside the New Testament."19 Of course, when evidence
is found, the minimalist will claim, "It's not enough; it really doesn't
prove the point; that's not the way I would interpret it." Jesus made it
absolutely clear that He would return in judgment to destroy the temple, judge
Jerusalem, and come on the clouds of heaven before the generation to whom He
was speaking passed away (Matt. 24:34). When the Bible tells Ice and his fellow
dispensationalists what was to transpire within a generation, and they do not
believe it, then why would they be convinced by some uninspired document
written decades after the fact? Ice sounds like the rich man who wants Abraham
to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him to his brothers to warn them about
the perils of Hades:
"‘I beg you, Father,
that you send [Lazarus] to my father's house--for I have five brothers--that he
may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said,
‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No,
Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’
But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither
will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead’" (Luke
If Ice does not listen to
Jesus and the New Testament writers on this subject, neither will he be
persuaded if some early church father interprets certain passages from a Preterist
perspective. Like the rich man's brothers, biblical minimalists all, Ice will
find some excuse by demanding even more evidence. Once I supply the shred of
evidence that he says does not exist, Ice will set a new higher standard of
evidence. Ice wants to use the murky waters of history to divine what the Bible
makes crystal clear.
for Part 2 click here
End Notes
1. Thomas Ice, "Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other
Issues": audio tape (December 1995).
2. A Preterist understands prophetic passages as being already fulfilled.
"The term ‘Preterism’ is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’
Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which
holds that they have already come to fulfillment. Actually, all
Christians--even dispensationalists--are preteristic to some extent. This is
necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic
passages have already been fulfilled in Christ's first coming." (Kenneth
L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1997], 162–163).
3. None of the contributors to The End Times Controversy teach at any of
the mainline dispensational seminaries. Two are Ph.D. candidates at Dallas
Theological Seminary. But DTS is a mixed bag eschatologically these days. Not
only must Ice and LaHaye's brand of Dispensationalism compete with Preterism in
the free market of ideas, it must also deal with "progressive Dispensationalism"
within its own camp.
4. These debates are available at www.americanvision.org.
5. Ice confronted me after our debate at BIOLA (February 2002) about Francis X.
Gumerlock's statement in his The Day and the Hour (2000), a book
published by American Vision and edited by me, that "The Dolcinites held
to a pre-tribulation rapture theory similar to that of modern Dispensationalism"
(Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites as
proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia
Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an end note (the English translation is
Gumerlock's): "Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the
said three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of
the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into this world at
the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, Dolcino
himself, and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and
Elijah are, and they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of
Antichrist; and then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend to earth to
confront the Antichrist, then they would be killed by him; or by his servants,
and thus Antichrist would reign again for many days. ‘Once Antichrist is truly
dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved
followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of
Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true
faith of Jesus Christ" (91–92).
6. "An intensive examination of the writings of Pretribulational scholars
reveals only one passage from the early fathers which is put forth as a possible
example of explicit Pretribulationalism." (William Everett Bell, "A
Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian
Eschatology" [School of Education of New York University, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, 1967], 27). Emphasis added.
7.
8. Alan Patrick Boyd, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the
Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin
Martyr)," submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Theology (May 1977), 90–91. In a footnote, the author
states: "Perhaps a word needs to be said about the eschatological position
of the writer of this thesis. He is a dispensational Premillennialist, and he
does not consider this thesis to be a disproof of that system. He originally
undertook the thesis to bolster the system by patristic research, but the
evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this (91, note 2)."
Emphasis added.
9. Relating to the church fathers (pater) and/or their writings.
10. Boyd, 92. In a footnote on this same page, Boyd questions the historical
accuracy of the research done on the patristic fathers by George N. H. Peters
in his much referenced three-volume work, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel, [1884] 1988). Boyd sides with the evaluation of the Amillennialist
Louis Berkhof when he writes that "it is not correct to say, as
Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first
three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine
were a rather limited number." (Berkhof, The History of Christian
Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1937) 1969], 262). Boyd demonstrates
with his research that dispensational author John F. Walvoord was wrong when he
wrote that "The early church was far from settled on details of
eschatology though definitely premillennial." (Walvoord, The Rapture
Question [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957], 137).
11. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Mood Press, 1995),
62.
12. William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal
Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church Since the Apostolic Age, 2 vols.
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1862] 1979), 1:175
13. Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to
14. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter 11, in Ante-Nicene
Fathers,
15. The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 55.
16. Those who read the Olivet Discourse did understand what the Holy Spirit was
saying: "For all who were owners of land or houses" sold them because
Jesus had told them that Jerusalem would be destroyed within a generation (Acts
4:34), and those who remained in Judea when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies
fled to the mountains (Matt. 24:15–22).
17. Ice equivocates on the meaning of "returned." Partial Preterists
believe that Jesus’ return to judge Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was a coming similar
to the way He promised to come in judgment against the churches in Asia Minor
in Revelation (2:5, 16; 3:3) and the way "coming" is used to describe
Jehovah's coming in Judgment against Egypt (Isa. 19:1), Babylon (13:6–10), and
Israel and Samaria (Micah 1:2–4). These passages do not refer to a future
physical and visible "second coming." The dispensationalist has Jesus
coming invisibly in a "rapture" then again at the end of the
tribulation period. This type of two-stage coming was certainly not taught in
the early church.
18. Thomas Ice, "The History of Preterism," The End Times
Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice
(
19. "Most New Testament scholars and other historians of ancient times
look to extracanonical Christian writings with serious interest, and some
scholars seem to place a higher value on them than on the canonical
writings." (Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An
Introduction to the Ancient Evidence [