Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds
Introduction
Some of the
most impassioned attacks that are launched against Preterists today come from
Protestants who judge Preterism (1) on the authority of the ecumenical
creeds. In the past, many who have
disagreed with Preterism have attempted to reason with us and have endeavored
to disprove us through exegesis, but this has not been the case with our
creedalist brothers. They have only
rebuked us sharply without discussion and condemned us as antichrists and as
wolves amidst the sheep of God’s pasture.
The
creedalists have behaved this way toward us partly because they believe that
since our teaching is an alteration of a major doctrine in the ecumenical
creeds, Preterism must, ipso facto, be a denial of "the Faith once
delivered to the saints." The
creedalists have concluded from our significant creedal deviation that Preterism
can be nothing less than an attempt to subvert and overthrow the Christian
religion itself.
Why do
Protestant creedalists put such an emphasis on the ecumenical creeds in their
rejection of Preterism? We will attempt
to accurately answer that question in this article as we examine the underlying
beliefs of the creedalists. First, we will look at some of the principles
wherein creedalists and Preterists agree. Then we will mark our point of
divergence and our conflicting conclusions. In the end, we will arrive at the
step that must be taken before this conflict can ever be resolved.
It is my
prayer that you the reader will give the ideas presented in this article
serious consideration. I pray also that
this article will help you to better understand not only the creedalists but
the Christian Faith.
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Contrary to
the way things often look to full Preterists, the conservative Protestant
creedalists today who are using the ecumenical creeds as their first (and often
only) line of defense against Preterism generally believe that:
The Bible
is the ultimate and only infallible and absolute authority concerning faith and
practice.
The typical
Protestant creedalist does not believe that the ecumenical creeds were
God-breathed, or that every "jot and tittle" of the creeds is
necessarily infallible or inerrant. The creedalists ascribe such qualities to
Scripture alone. The creedalists know that though the Lord in His providence
had determined that the vital truths of the Gospel were to be communicated in
the Church’s ecumenical creeds, the writers of the creeds were not inspired;
they were fallible, and were subject --as all men are-- to lapses in their
reasoning, and to failings in their comprehension and representation of the
Scriptures.
Because of
this, the creedalists do not automatically reject everyone as a Christian for
every deviation from the ecumenical creeds. As the creedalist Andrew Sandlin
says in his article Biblical Authority and Christian Orthodoxy, historic
Christian "orthodoxy" (the standard of basic Christian doctrine set
by the ecumenical creeds) is a "much safer" presupposition than a
Bible-only approach to Bible study, so that a deviation from orthodoxy is
"usually" a perversion of biblical truth (Chalcedon Report, July
1997). In other words, a deviation from orthodoxy is not always necessarily a
biblical error, because the creeds, though very reliable, are fallible.
Notwithstanding
this concession from the creedalists though, they will not allow Preterists any
liberty to challenge the creeds with Preterism. Why is this? It is because Preterists
are not questioning merely one of the peripheral particulars or shades of
meaning in the ecumenical creeds, but are meddling with a major creedal
teaching. It is this fact that has caused the creedalists to conclude that Preterists
must be refuting a cardinal (i.e., principal, fundamental, indispensable or
essential) doctrine of the Christian Faith.
Preterists
believe that the creedalists here are jumping to the wrong conclusion. If Preterists
are refuting a Scripture doctrine, and if the creeds can contain inaccuracies
(as the creedalists admit), and if Scripture is the only infallible authority
(as the creedalists admit), then must not the creedalists use Scripture (and
not primarily the creeds) if they are to ever decisively disprove Preterism?
Indeed, we
reason, how can the creedalists themselves know with certainty whether Preterism
is truth or error if they refuse to, or are unable to, prove or disprove it by
means of the only infallible Scriptures? Their behavior toward Preterism seems
even more specious to us when we remember that the creedalists themselves have
used Scripture to effectively and systematically refute another eschatological
deviation from orthodoxy: hyper-Dispensationalism. Why do the creedalists not
now respond to Preterism with the same kind of studied, Scriptural response?
Are the
creedalists reacting to Preterism in a manner inconsistent with their belief
that the Bible is the only infallible authority concerning the Faith? It
appears to Preterists, and to others, that they surely are. But how is it that
the creedalists believe that they are not acting in a manner incompatible with
the Reformation principle of sola scriptura? To begin to answer this question,
we will look at an important belief wherein the creedalists and Preterists have
agreement.
THE ETERNAL GOSPEL
The
creedalists believe that:
God has
necessarily preserved throughout history the correct understanding of the
biblical truths that are necessary for salvation. Or to put it another way, the
Church must always possess the true Gospel.
The Bible
tells us that when
"Of
the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne
of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment
and with justice from henceforth and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts
will perform this" (Isa. 9:7).
"For
the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not
depart from you, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, says the
Lord Who has mercy on you." (Isa. 54:10).
"Your
gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men
may bring to you the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be
brought" (Isa. 60:11).
"The
gates of it shall not be shut at all by day, for there shall be no night
there" (Rev. 21:25).
“. . . the
Tree of Life . . . yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree
were for the healing of the nations. . . . and His servants shall . . . reign
for ever and ever." (Rev. 22:2, 3, 5).
Inasmuch as
"God Himself" is forever "among men," (Rev. 21:3) so is the
Church eternally among us (Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 19:7; 21:2, 9). This is the
promise of the eternal covenant (Rev. 21:5-7). It follows from this that the
Gospel is also with us forever, since without the Gospel there is no Church,
and there is no God among us. Because of this, God can never and will never
allow His Church to everywhere proclaim a false gospel, as the Church is
"the pillar and ground of the Truth" (I Tim. 3:15). As the Lord says
in another place, the Church continuously declares the glory of the Lord (Ps.
19:1-4; Rom. 10:18).
To say then
that the universal Church has preached a false gospel throughout history is to
refute God’s covenant, and the power of His Gospel, and the authority of His
Church. It is to, in essence, call God a liar.
Although
there are likely no Preterists who maintain that the universal Church has been
"always and everywhere" preaching a damnable lie subsequent to the
days of the apostles, the biblical principle of the eternality of God’s
covenant does have an effect on the debate over Preterism and creedalism. For
if the creedalists are correct that Preterism is a doctrine that is so
radically other, that it makes what the Church has always preached throughout
history a damnable heresy-- then Preterism must necessarily be absolutely
false.
If we
regard Preterism to be true, we must not imagine that futurism then constitutes
a gospel that if a man believes he cannot be saved --because ever since some
number of years after the apostolic generation, the universal Church has always
(until relatively recently) preached some form of futurism. If Preterism makes
the historical gospel of the Church into a salvation-forfeiting lie, then Preterism
must inevitably be nothing more than an invention of modernity --a damnable,
liberal heresy.
Since it is
impossible that the universal Church has "always and everywhere"
preached a false gospel, only two possibilities can exist:
Preterism
is an erroneous and possibly damnable doctrine (II Tim. 2:18), or
Futurism is
an erroneous but not a damnable doctrine.
As we know,
the creedalists choose option number one. And not only do they fervently claim
that Preterism is damnable; they go a step further and declare that belief in
futurism is absolutely indispensable for salvation. It is this belief that
renders the creedalists unable to even consider Preterism as a valid option.
Preterists
on the other hand do not believe that futurism is a damnable or indispensable
belief. Nor do Preterists believe that they are introducing a new way of
salvation. They do believe however that, as the reformers before them, they are
teaching a better understanding of the same salvation that the Church has and
will continue to "always and everywhere" preach.
As we will
discuss this point at which the creedalists and the Preterists clash in more
detail below, let us agree for now on these points: that God has preserved the
Gospel without interruption throughout history and that the historic Church has
unintermittently dispensed that Gospel to the nations.
If we
believe these two points, they will lead us to another belief in which we
should find agreement with the creedalists: a belief in the authority of the
creeds.
THE GOSPEL IN THE CREEDS
The
biblical truths which are necessary for salvation, and which God has preserved
throughout history, were written in the ecumenical creeds.
The ancient
ecumenical creeds have been deemed by all members of the universal Church
--western, eastern, even Roman-- throughout history as containing the
fundamental rudiments of the true Gospel of salvation. If, as we stated above,
the Church must necessarily remain perpetually in possession of the true Gospel
of Christ, and if the ecumenical creeds contain a reflection of the message
which all believers in the universal Church have historically believed and
preached --and it is reasonable to believe that this is the case (2) -- then
this must follow:
The creeds
must contain the Gospel.
If the
creeds do not contain the Gospel (and therefore do contain a false gospel)
while they accurately reflect the historic message of the universal Church,
then it would follow that the historic Church was preaching a false gospel, and
therefore was never the Church. Since no one can accept that idea without
utterly forsaking the Christian religion and blaspheming God, one is drawn to
agree that the creeds of the Church contain the Gospel.
What does
this mean in the creedalist/Preterist controversy? For one thing, it means that the
creedalists are correct when they say that we may not refute the elemental
traditions of the Gospel which are contained in the creeds. They are right that such things are
"not up for debate." The
rudiments of the Gospel are indeed divine presuppositions without which the
historic Faith and the Church would completely disappear. We are not free to
refute or nullify any of the cardinal elements of the Christian Faith (3).
It is true
that our freedom as Preterists to challenge the ecumenical creeds is
restricted, though not because the traditional, cardinal doctrines were
engraved on creedal paper by the Finger of God, but because the Scriptures and
the Church together confirm the rudimentary doctrines of the Gospel (found in
the creeds) as being the foundational truths of salvation.
Here is an
example outside of Preterism that validates this way of reasoning: The historic
Church has proclaimed that Jesus is God incarnate, born of a virgin. If He is
not God, then the Church has been teaching men to worship someone who is not
God. To preach such a message is
damnable (Ex. 22:20). Since it is impossible that the universal, historic
Church of God could "always and everywhere" reside in a damning
error, we must conclude that if the Church is truly the Church, then Jesus
Christ must be God (as the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed teach). Hence, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ
is not up for debate, as it is a tenet of the historic Church’s God-given,
Bible-based Gospel-Tradition, without which the universal Church would not
exist and no one could be saved (4).
So far we
should and we must stand in agreement with the creedalists that God has
preserved in the Church throughout history a sufficient and adequate
understanding of the biblical truths which are necessary for salvation, that
the Gospel which the Church has historically preached is reflected in the
ecumenical creeds, and that we are not free to remove or distort any of the
biblical rudiments of the Faith which are found in the ecumenical creeds.
To the
extent of the rudiments of the Gospel, we cannot challenge the teachings of the
ecumenical creeds without challenging God Himself.
ARBITRARY CREEDALISM
Now having
agreed upon these things we finally come to this question: Exactly what eschatological
doctrines, if any, (after Christ’s death and resurrection) are included in the
non-negotiable, "essential Gospel," that if a man does not believe he
must be damned?
It is in
this question that the creedalist/Preterist conflict resides. The creedalists
suppose that belief in the (yet) future-ness and, more especially, the
physical-ness of the Second Coming and of its accompanying events, as taught in
the creeds, are absolutely essential to salvation, and that therefore the parts
of the creeds which contain those teachings cannot be challenged, even as the
doctrine of Christ’s death and resurrection cannot be challenged. It is on this
basis that the creedalists make their claim that they and others must refuse to
reason from the Scriptures with Preterists, because we are antichrist.
We should
realize that if the creedalists are ever to be convinced that they should
exegete with Preterists and that they should cease from condemning us, the
creedalists will have to be convinced first that there is a theoretical
possibility that futurism might not be an essential, non-negotiable tenet of
orthodoxy wherein if a man disbelieves he must be damned. If the creedalists
can be convinced that there is even a bare possibility that belief in futurism
could be a non-requisite to salvation, the offending presupposition would be
gone and communication between creedalists and Preterists could begin, and the
creedalists could then begin to reason substantively with the Scriptures.
So much
hinges on the answer to these questions: Could futurism not be part of
essential orthodoxy that a man must believe or be damned? Could futurism
possibly be an historic, non-fatal Church error?
If the
answer to either of those questions is yes, then the creedalists are in sin by
having hastily shunned Preterists without discussion and prematurely concluded
that we are enemies. If either of those questions can be answered with a yes,
the creedalists must be exhorted to repent, to learn to be "quick to hear,
slow to speak, and slow to be angry" (James. 1:19).
As we
reason through these questions, let us begin again at a doctrine on which
creedalists and Preterists agree: the indispensability of the Second Coming.
The doctrine of the Parousia (Second Coming) is a systematically essential
rudiment of Christian orthodoxy. If the Parousia were to never happen, then
Christ’s ministry and His work on the cross, and the subsequent ministry of the
Holy Spirit and of the apostles all came to naught, and we are still in our
sins. Because of this, we may safely say that a rejection of the doctrine of
the Second Coming is grievous and destructive, and that a knowledgeable and
willful rejection of the doctrine is a grave, even damnable error.
However, as
undeniably indispensable to the Christian religion and to the Church’s
salvation as the fact of the Parousia is, and as damnable as is a knowledgeable
denial that the Bible teaches it, and as destructive an error as it is to teach
wrong things about it, the Second Coming is nevertheless not a doctrine that
one must necessarily know correctly in order to be saved. We know this is true
because, if it were the case that we must have a correct understanding of the
doctrine of the Second Coming in order to be saved, then all believers would be
damned except those who hold to one exact eschatological view. Since this is
unacceptable, we know that an error about "the time and the nature"
of the Second Coming, as grievous as it may be, could theoretically exist in
the Church, since every such error is not inescapably "another gospel"
that if one believes he cannot be saved.
A
creedalist would likely agree with that last statement, but would maintain that
Preterism "crosses the line" between acceptable eschatological
disagreement between brothers, and damnable heresy; and that which
"crosses the line" about Preterism is, as we said above, the degree
of its deviation from orthodoxy. While the creedalists admit that creedal
orthodoxy may be slightly flawed on a sub-point or two, the idea that it could
be flawed on a major point is absolutely unthinkable and anathema to the
creedalists.
In other
words, a small creedal error is possible, but a "major" creedal error
is absolutely impossible. In their thinking, if a creed contained a serious
error, then the whole
But we must
ask the creedalists, is not this line between possible non-fatal flaws and
impossible non-fatal flaws an arbitrary construction? If minor non-damnable
errors can exist in the creeds, then why cannot serious non-damnable errors
exist in the creeds? Could not God have allowed such errors to exist for
hundreds of years? Where did God promise His Church, implicitly or explicitly,
that He would never allow her to make serious, non-fatal, multi-generational
errors?
What is the
basis for the creedalists belief that serious non-fatal errors cannot
universally exist in the Church for centuries? Their basis for this belief is,
quite simply, presuppositional creedalism. The creedalists assume at the outset
that every prominent aspect of creedal doctrine must be believed as an
indispensable part of the true Gospel.
For the
creedalists, it is truly as if God has decreed and promised under oath, in
writing, that the universal Church’s understanding of salvific doctrines
absolutely cannot contain any noteworthy errors. Or to put it more
specifically: For the creedalists, it is as if God Himself sent the Church
three synopses of the Faith and promised the Church that these three papers are
absolutely errorless at every major point and that every major point must be
believed for salvation.
It is this
mindset that causes the creedalists to reason that every major point of
orthodoxy is scriptural because it is orthodoxy. As far as they are concerned,
that is the end of the discussion.
Admittedly,
it would be a good thing that the creedalists are fighting for an ancient
Church tradition, if it weren't for the fact that they are blindly presupposing
that this particular tradition is a biblical tradition, and thereby
unauthoritatively declaring that belief in the tradition is a prerequisite for
salvation.
"Circular
reasoning" is not inherently wrong, but on this issue we Preterists see
strong evidence that our creedalist brothers are chasing their presuppositional
tails in a creedolatrous (or ecclesialatrous) error, so that even if Preterism
is false, the creedalists are arguing against it in an irrational (sinful)
manner. We pray to God that He will open their eyes to the misdirection of
their faith.
In the
meantime, let us answer these questions: Could futurism not be part of
essential orthodoxy that a man must believe or be damned? Could futurism
possibly be an historic Church error? Yes, because:
1. The
basis upon which the creedalists have categorically rejected Preterism (and Preterists)
is arbitrary: The creedalists unauthoritatively assert that God would not allow
His Church to make a serious, non-damnable creedal error. Then from that
assertion, they unauthoritatively pronounce Preterism a damnable heresy.
2. If Preterism
is true, that does not mean that futurism is a damnable error. It would be
arbitrary to say that all forms of futurism are damnable if Preterism is true.
Non-damnable errors can exist in the creeds, as the creedalists admit. Futurism
could be such an error.
3. The
substantial exegetical case that has been made for Preterism has not yet been
decisively (biblically) disproven. In light of points one and two, this means
that as far as anyone can know, Preterism could be true and futurism could be
false.
WHY DO THE CREEDALISTS RAGE?
As we have
said, Preterism is exegetically derived. It is the child of Scripture exegesis.
This fact in itself does not by any means prove that Preterism is biblical, but
since Preterism grows from out of Scripture exegesis (and not from out of
hatred for creeds or tradition), there is only one possible way that the Preterism/futurism
controversy can ever be resolved, and that is through judicious Scripture
exegesis and reasoning. If Preterism is false, then there absolutely must be
sound reasoning from the Scriptures in the creedalist camp before this
controversy can be finished. As the Westminster Confession of Faith wisely
says:
"The
supreme Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and
all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and
private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can
be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (Chapter I,
Section X)
The
creedalists' strong reliance on orthodoxy in this controversy is putting them
in a precarious situation as the case for creedal futurism is being found to be
wanting in light of the exegetical weight of Preterism. This is being proven
true in the fact that, while relying almost solely on creedal orthodoxy, the
creedalists are giving no reasoned or solidly biblical, systematic reason why Preterists
must be damned. The fact that Preterists contradict a "major" aspect
of creedal orthodoxy (the time and nature of the Second Coming) is all the
"logic" that the creedalists need in order to condemn. Indeed, one
can almost hear the creedalists declaring, "The Preterists have spoken
blasphemy; ‘what further need have we of [Scriptural] witnesses?’" (Matt.
26:65)
This brings
us to another important reason, aside from their inordinate veneration of
creedal orthodoxy, that the creedalists angrily abstain from exegeting
Scripture against Preterism, and that is that the creedalists are exegetically
defenseless (hence, their inevitable lapse into irrationality in their fight
against Preterism). This is why that though they have always been diligent in
the past in exegeting Scriptures to refute all other heresies in the Church,
they are unwilling to do the same thing in the light of Preterism. Their
behavior is strikingly changed with us, and as we know, they have as of yet
produced not one exegetically substantive refutation of Preterism.
Though they
deny it, the creedalists are demonstrating that they believe the following:
If a major
creedal doctrine (which the creedalists deem to be a prerequisite belief for
salvation) is not scripturally provable, or if a challenge to a major creedal
doctrine is not scripturally disprovable, then we must at that point put our
faith in God for salvation through the teaching of the creeds alone. Instead of
attempting to "prove all things" pertaining to salvation by means of
the Scriptures, the creedalists are assuming certain things pertaining to
salvation by means of the fallible creeds in the absence of decisive proofs
from the Scriptures. This is a dangerous thing to do.
While
deferring to the authority of the Church in the absence of a firm Scriptural
teaching is not inherently illegitimate, the question here is, are the fallible
decrees of the Church alone, without strong Scriptural support, authoritative
enough to be used to anathematize brothers? The Preterists’ answer to this
question is an unequivocal No. The creedalists reject the validity of the
question itself, presupposing that belief in creedal futurism must be as
essential to salvation as is belief in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Since the
creedalists insist on rejecting Preterism because of tradition alone, while
they do not have a strong exegetical or systematic basis for their rejection,
we Preterists cannot help but perceive them as modern-day
"Pharisees":
For laying
aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men . . . Full well you
reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition . . .
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have
delivered . . . . (Mk. 7:8, 9, 13).
It is not
unreasonable to conclude that this is why we have seen so much anger and verbal
abuse from the Protestant creedalists today: Their behavior is characteristic
of those who find that they have very little Biblical defense for the
traditional belief to which they passionately cling (5). Thus it is that we
have seen the creedalists behaving with like passion as those men who heard
Stephen’s teaching that day before the council:
They cried
out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord
(Acts 7:57).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Preterists
and Creedalists believe that:
1. God has
preserved His Gospel throughout history.
2. The
cardinal doctrines of the Gospel are God-given, indisputable truths.
3. Those
historical tenets of the Faith were recorded in the ecumenical creeds.
4. We do
not have liberty to deny the Gospel in the creeds.
The
Creedalists presuppose that:
The
futuristic eschatological interpretation of prophecy in the creeds is truly
rudimentary to the Gospel of Christ, so that if a man does not believe futurism
he must be damned.
The
Preterists believe, in contrast, that:
The
futuristic eschatological interpretation of prophecy in the creeds not only is
not rudimentary to the Gospel of Christ, but it is an historical Church error
which though not fatal to the life of the Church, has been damaging to its
health. Preterism must not be automatically dismissed without a hearing. It
must be exegetically proved or disproved from the Scriptures.
We counsel
the Creedalists to realize:
That they
are losing the exegetical battle against Preterism by default,
That they
have no firm biblical basis to pronounce all Preterists as damned,
That they
should check their zeal for some of the traditions, to which they adhere,
That
futurism could be a church error,
Conclusion:
A time is
coming when Preterism must be answered with the Scriptures in an ecumenical
council in order to authoritatively find whether it is damnable, erroneous or
true. History has never seen such a council on prophecy, much less on Preterism.
We Preterists look forward to that council. Until that time, our creedalist
brothers who refuse to prove or disprove us from the Scriptures should wisely
withhold their fiery indignation until and unless such a time comes as it may
be appropriate. If the creedalists will not repent, and if they continue to
refrain from using reasoned Bible exegesis, they will find that in all of their
angry rebukes, they did nothing of consequence while Preterism became the wave
of the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS
A Creed is
a confession or rule of faith which is meant to authoritatively set forth the
articles of the Christian Faith, especially those cardinal articles which are
necessary for a man to know in order to be saved.
The
authority of creeds is limited. They are always and forever subordinate to the
Scriptures. Though the creeds do contain the Gospel of eternal life and other
truths, they are only a feeble attempt of men to put into brief systematic form
the doctrines of divine truth. They are the interpretative formulations of
uninspired men.
The
ecumenical (general or worldwide) creeds are the doctrinal confessions of the
ancient, post-apostolic Church. The historic, universal Church has regarded
these creeds as authoritative expressions of the Christian Faith down to the
present day. There are three Ecumenical creeds: The Apostles' Creed, The Nicene
Creed, and The Athanasian Creed.6
THE APOSTLES' CREED (c. 340;
received form, 6th - 8th century)
I believe
in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his
only begotten Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he
descended into hell; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into
heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence
he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the
holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the
resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
THE NICENE CREED (A. D. 381)
I believe
in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with
the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for us men and for our
salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the
Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius
Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according
to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of
the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and
the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost,
the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who
with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by
the Prophets. And [I believe] one Holy Catholic and
THE ATHANASIAN CREED (c. A. D. 400 -
800)
Whosoever
will be saved: before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic
Faith: Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship
one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor
dividing the Substance [Essence]. For there is one Person of the Father:
another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the
Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the
Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated: the Son uncreated: and the Holy Ghost
uncreated. The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible
[unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite]. The
Father eternal: the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are
not three eternals: but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated: nor
three incomprehensibles [infinites], but one uncreated: and one
incomprehensible [infinite]. So likewise the Father is Almighty: the Son
Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties:
but one Almighty. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is
God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God. So likewise the Father is
Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord. For like as we are compelled by
the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There are three Gods, or
three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten. The Son
is of the Father alone: not made, nor created: but begotten. The Holy Ghost is
of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created nor begotten: but
proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons:
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore, or
after another: none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before,
or after: nothing greater or less]. But the whole three Persons are co-eternal,
and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the
Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved must [let
him] thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting
salvation: that he also believe rightly [faithfully] the Incarnation of our
Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance
[Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance
[Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God: and perfect Man, of a
reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching
his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although
he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of
the Godhead into flesh: but by taking [assumption] of the Manhood into God. One
altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]: but by unity of Person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world]: rose
again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the
right hand of the Father God [God the Father] Almighty. From whence [thence] he
shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise
again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they
that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done
evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man
believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he can not be saved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
1. The term
Preterism in this article refers to the belief that all (or virtually all)
Bible prophecy is fulfilled. It does not refer to the belief of partial Preterism,
which says that the Great Tribulation is fully past but that a great many other
things are not fulfilled, most importantly: the Second Coming, the death of the
Devil, the general Resurrection of the dead, and the Great White Throne
Judgment.
2. Some Preterists
and others have said that since the creeds were written by, and have been
endorsed by, the "institutional church," (meaning potentially, the
false church) there is no reason to presume that the true Gospel ever found its
way into the creeds. I cannot agree with this view, as it is not credible that
the true Church the world over has been --for seventeen centuries-- radically
disconnected from the visible Church the world over. It is also not believable
that the true Church,
which the
Bible describes as being organized and having government, should be practically
non-definable in culture and in history, as it would be if it is not an organic
part of the historic, visible Church.
3. As we
suggested above, this primarily means that we are not free to attack the
Church's teaching of Christ's death and resurrection from the dead.
4. Note that this conclusion is based upon
biblical reason: Since Scriptures teach that worshiping another god is
damnable, and since the universal Church worships Christ, Christ must be God.
This conclusion was not reached by means of a blind faith in creedal
statements. The Scriptures do not teach us that to believe that the
resurrection of the dead took place spiritually at the Parousia (after II Tim.
2:18 was written, in 70) is damnable. The creedalists, in their condemnation of
Preterists, are
forced to
rely upon creedal doctrines that are disconnected from the reasoning of the
Scriptures.
5. The creedalists have even been driven to
demonize us, slanderously reporting to the world that we "revise the
orthodox definition of Christ's resurrection" and actually deny that it
was bodily. (Ken
Gentry,
Taking A Closer Look, Table Talk, January 1999, page 56; Andrew Sandlin, Open
Letter to Ligonier Ministries, February 10, 1999)
6. See The
Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff
as of 8-2006