Introduction:
The orthodox paradigm is
held collectively by all who give allegiance to the traditional interpretation
of Holy Scripture as found in Christendom’s Ecumenical Creeds. Disputes over
eschatology between orthodox theologians, like Postmillennialists and
Amillennialists, will eventually be solved through appeals to the common
standards of their shared orthodox paradigm. Although orthodox theologians are
required to use responsible creativity when they interpret Scripture, one
essential component of responsible creativity is that it is directed under the guidance
of the Creeds. On first glance it may be tempting to marginalize the mammoth
disagreement between the orthodox and hyper-Preterists by treating the whole
controversy as if it were simply another vexing debate over eschatology,
however, a second glace reveals that this temptation must be resisted, for the
dividing issues are not so inconsequential. In an unwarranted abandonment of
the orthodox paradigm, hyper-Preterists have militantly committed themselves to
a different paradigm that guides their unorthodox interpretation of Holy
Scripture. In the absence of a shared paradigm it is both frustrating and
futile to try to solve this disagreement through a list of proof texts. After
all, Scriptural proof texts can only be properly interpreted under the guidance
of the right paradigm. Which raises the important question, do the orthodox or
the hyper-Preterists have the right paradigm to interpret Scripture? The answer
to this question reveals a profound difference between orthodox Christians and
hyper-Preterists. As noted scholar Douglas Wilson once remarked, “…Before we
can understand our debates with the hyper-Preterists, we have to recognize that
it is not fundamentally a debate about eschatology at all. The fundamental
question is one of authority.” The real question is not “should we read
Scripture with or without a paradigm,” but “which paradigm should we use?”
Hyper-Preterists are not guilty of appealing to the common standards of
orthodoxy incorrectly, as Amillennialists think Postmillennialists are, but of
using different standards altogether. It is like Postmillennialists and
Amillennialists are playing a game of chess, while hyper-Preterists are playing
a game of tick-tack toe. Now it should be obvious to everyone that there can
only be authentic competition between two players playing under the rules of
that game. When everyone follows the rules then it makes sense to talk about
one person wining and another person losing. Yet, as obvious as all this
certainly is, let us suppose for the sake of argument, that with a chess board
in hands a tick-tack-toe player, foolishly tried to challenge a chess player to
a game of tick-tack-toe without informing her that he wanted to play
tick-tack-toe instead of chess. The result of such a match would be nothing short
of confusion and frustration.
However, what if the
tick-tack-toe player instead of realizing that the chess player was working
under the rules of chess, mistook the inability of her to provide ‘three in a
row’ as a sign of defeat? No doubt, he would rashly champion his ‘victory’ over
the confused and startled chess player. In fact, we can imagine the
tick-tack-toe player making such a ruckus that the audience would try to
intervene on behalf of the chess player and explain to this silly tick-tack-toe
player that “She did not provide three in a row because she thought, when you
pulled out the chess board and chess pieces, that you were going to play her in
a game chess”. No doubt, we can imagine the tick-tack-toe player getting
enraged at the audience and accusing them of ‘inconsistency’ and dismissing
their comments as mere refusals to acknowledge his well deserved victory. As
silly as this situation would be, I suspect that it happens way to often in
theology. When a hyper-Preterists, with a good imagination, is able to
reinterpret every verse in the Bible through the lens of his paradigm he often
thinks that he has earned some kind of victory over his orthodox opponents.
However, in reality, this hyper-Preterists has only succeeded in confusing his
orthodox debate partner. A hyper-Preterists who uses the ‘chess board and chess
pieces’ of orthodoxy (i.e. the Cannon of Scripture found in the Ecumenical
Creeds) causes an orthodox person to think that the hyper-Preterists will be
fully consistent and not only use the board of orthodoxy but also follow the
rules of that game (i.e. the theological framework found in the Ecumenical
Creeds). Just because a creative Hyper-Preterists can shove any verse into an
unorthodox conceptual box proves nothing and only succeeds in causing more
confusion and frustration. It certainly does not succeed in producing
theological victory as hyper-preterist’s think. Hyper-Preterists are merely
using the same tricks that Gnostics and Arians did to undermine orthodoxy, for
they too were able to fit Bible verses into their own unorthodox and mutually
exclusive conceptual boxes. It is time for hyper-Preterists to stop making
rhetorical demands like “The orthodox just need to use Scripture and disprove
hyper-Preterism” and for the orthodox to start realizing where the burden of
proof really is. The orthodox need to start demanding serious argumentation
from the hyper-Preterists for their position. Where are the arguments for the
hyper-preterist’s interpretative authority or Scriptural paradigm?
At this point someone might
object, “Interpreting the ‘Bible’ does not require paradigms. We can just use
our neutral reason to decide what the right interpretation of Scripture is.” In
response to this objection it must be noted that since the Bible is written in
human language, its words and sentences, like every other human language, must
be interpreted through the lens of a whole network of beliefs. Reason alone is
thus insufficient to interpret language. Unless reason has the tutelage of a
whole network of previous beliefs it is a blind and unreliable guide. To
illustrate this point consider a scenario in which person X, says to person Y,
“She saw the farmer with binoculars.” This statement can be rationally
interpreted by person Y to mean either that the women had the binoculars or
that the farmer had the binoculars. Reason alone cannot tell person Y what the
correct interpretation of this statement is, however, suppose person Y knew in
advance that when person X, made this statement, person X was pointing at a
women without binoculars looking at a farmer with binoculars in hand. Good
sense (i.e. a combination of reason and a whole network of beliefs) would,
given these circumstances, easily be able to guide person Y to the right
interpretation of person X’s statement. Thus the idea of using reason alone
must be abandoned in favor of using ‘good sense’ when it comes to interpreting
language and by implication Scripture.
A community of interpreters
employs ‘good sense’ under the control of an interpretive paradigm. People must
interpret Scripture holistically. We do not interpret one verse at a time but
we interpret many verses simultaneously. We make assumptions about the
reliability of the text translation and we even interpret Scriptures with previous
theological doctrines (In fact, those who claim to not have previous
theological doctrines before reading Scripture are usually the ones most
blinded by them). With a whole previous network of theological beliefs we
interpret Scripture and these previous beliefs lead us to certain expectations
about Scripture before we even read it. An example of a previous theological
belief we need to hold to before we can properly interpret Scripture is the
belief that God will not lie, only with this belief already firmly held could
we ever be able to trust what God says in Scripture. Now when a Scriptural
verse fails to meet our expectations we have a whole host of options left to
explain what to do before we throw away our previous theological belief. We
could for example revise our translation of a text, come up with an auxiliary
interpretation of the verse or leave this verse as a puzzle to be solved for
another season. Reason alone is powerless to tell us what to revise and what
not to revise and so interpreters must employ ‘good sense.’
Under the guidance of the
Creeds the orthodox interpreter employs ‘good sense’ when it comes to
interpreting Scripture. For example, suppose an orthodox person who expects
Scripture to always teach that Jesus will return in bodily form encounters a
verse that appears to confirm hyper-Preterism and by implication a secret
return of Christ in A.D. 70. Suppose for example, she encounters a verse that
says “I tell you the truth, some of you who are standing here will not taste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28).
Now the orthodox paradigm teaches that the nature of Christ’s return will be
physical, final, and public but clearly when we consult the history books we
discover that if Christ did return in A.D. 70 then it was not in the nature
that the orthodox paradigm expected. Hence, the orthodox interpreter could
revise their understanding of the nature of Christ’s return (much as Jehovah
Witness’s did when their own prediction of Christ’s coming proved false), if
she knew a little Greek she could also revise the translation, or she could
just leave this verse to be explained by the more learned in the orthodox
faith, or she could just offer an interpretation more consistent with the
orthodox paradigm. New Testament Scholar NT Wright, from an orthodox standpoint
offers a much more plausible interpretation of this verse when he writes,
Many people have
been puzzled by these claims, for the simple reason that they have failed to
see the significance of what happens at the end of the story. The phrases about
‘the son of man coming in his kingdom’ and the like are not about what we would
call the ‘second coming’ of Jesus. They are about his vindication, fallowing
his suffering. They are fulfilled when he rises from the dead and is granted
‘all authority in heaven and on earth’ (Matt 28:18).
NT Wright’s interpretation
also explains why Jesus used the picture of the “Son of Man coming in his
kingdom” to describe his vindication, which includes not just his resurrection
but also the destruction of the
All of these revision
options or alternative interpretations are logically coherent and reason alone
cannot decide between them. Now the orthodox paradigm teaches that under no
circumstance can the nature of Christ’s return be revised (like the Jehovah
Witnesses and hyper-Preterists have done) and so ‘good sense’ would lead the
orthodox to prefer NT Wright’s more plausible interpretation of the verse.
Interpreting Scripture requires us to use paradigms. Having adequately argued
against a naïve view of interpreting the Bible, let us move on to consider more
reasons to prefer the orthodox paradigm to the hyper-preterist’s paradigm.
The
Restorationists attempted
to meet the confusion of the times with empty promises of a soon coming of
Jesus. Jesus would end the space-time continuum and Christians would escape
this world (perhaps through a secret rapture?). The Scriptural message was read
as if it was a newspaper, which if read correctly could foretell the next few
years. Under the Restorationist paradigm the doctrine of “Christ’s second
coming’ was thought to be about the ending of history and naturally lead to the
conclusion that Christians have no responsibility to this perishing world.
Dispensationalists, on accident reaffirmed the Creeds, but fitting Scripture
into a conceptual scheme of wooden (physical) literalism they managed to
distort the Biblical narrative and misinterpret almost every verse in the
process. In reaction, hyper-Preterists attempted to fight against
Dispensationalists using the Dispensationalists own standards. Almost every
verse in the Bible that talks about a coming of Jesus was placed in a
Restorationist’s style ‘Second Coming of Christ’ category. As Restorationists,
Hyper-Preterists basically read Jesus as if he had thought in
dispensationalists categories. So, when Jesus used words like ‘soon’ and ‘this
generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ hyper-Preterists
mistook Jesus to have been speaking in a wooden fashion like
Dispensationalists. The orthodox paradigm on the other hand places these verses
in the categories that would be fitting for a Jewish apocalyptic prophet which
leads to radically different expectations that will be explored latter in this
paper.
Hyper-Preterists tried to
place these time-reference verses in that Dispensational category and argued
that Christ must have come within forty years of uttering these statements.
Dispensationalists, of course, knew and still know that these verses exist but
they explain away these verses by saying that these time references are only
spiritual. In response, the hyper-Preterists basically projected a
Restorationist’s paradigm onto the Apostles. These Dispensationalists Apostles
expected Christ to return in their generation just as American
Dispensationalists expect Christ to return in their day. The hyper-Preterists,
to retain this thesis, argued that Dispensationalists have the right categories
of Dogma, but they just need to switch from physical woodenism to spiritual
woodenism when they interpret the nature of Christ’s coming. Thus the struggle
between Dispensationalists and hyper-Preterists is really a family dispute. The
orthodox should avoid entering this debate at all costs because it is boring
and unproductive from an orthodox standpoint.
An old theologian’s proverb
says that “When some people invent a new doctrine, it is like they have
discovered a hammer and everything around them has become a nail.” This proverb
captures the essence of the hyper-Preterists. They know in advance that the
resurrection of believers, the Second Coming, the Day of Judgment, all took
place in A.D. 70, yet they cannot agree how. (Their situation is similar to
Jehovah’s Witnesses who have had to explain how Jesus returned without anyone
really knowing about except the Jehovah Witness). Holding on to the
Restorationists paradigm they spiritualize all these doctrines. This fact has
been repeatedly observed by various scholars. Old Testament scholar, Richard
Pratt, for example writes,
Simply put,
because they are convinced that the New Testament proclaims an imminent return
of Christ, hyper-Preterists revise their understanding of the nature of his
return in order to maintain the integrity of the New Testament. They deny that
the New Testament predicts a cataclysmic, physical return and renewal of the
heavens and earth, and they maintain instead the return of Christ was spiritual
in nature and took place during the first century (Pratt 149).
Another scholar, Robert
Strimple corroborates Pratt’s observation in the following words
’The necessary
first step’ [of hyper-Preterists] is to decide that the second coming of Christ
and all that was to follow immediately upon it, including the resurrection of
‘those who belong to him’ (1 Corinthians 15:23), happened in A.D. 70. Then the
second step is to reinterpret all the biblical passages that speak of the
coming resurrection in a way that could plausibly have happened at that time”
(Strimple 290).
These scholars have
correctly noted that hyper-Preterism is the result of trying to fit every verse
into a previously established conceptual box. The world of Dispensationalism is
irrationally devoted to trying to place everything else to the next few years.
Hyper-Preterism
into A.D. 70 having
seen that hyper-Preterism and Dispensationalism belong to the Restorationist
paradigm and not the orthodox paradigm; we can now intelligibly ask the
question what about the rest of us who do not want to play the game at all?
Personally, I find the game boring and fault the two players for lack of
creativity. (I mean if you are going to be a Restorationist why not be creative
and do something new like Joseph Smith did?)
Comparing and
Contrasting the Restorationist Paradigm and the Orthodox Paradigm If the Restorationists are right
about Scripture then there is no way to ‘check and balance’ an individual’s
interpretation of the Bible. The Bible becomes simply my individual
interpretation. Restorationists thought that they could escape the Pope by
reading the Bible autonomously but actually they are merely substituting one
pope for a thousand popes. I wager that responsible allegiance to the traditional
interpretation of Scripture is the only way to avoid this dangerous
individualism. Martin Luther used the traditional interpretation of Scripture
to get away from
Hyper-Preterists often
object to the orthodox use of ‘Creeds’ as a check and balance to interpreting
Scripture, on the basis that these ‘Creeds’ have been created by fallible
Christians and therefore could possibly be in error. However, if ‘fallibility’
is an argument against the truthfulness of the Creeds then it is equally an
argument against the truthfulness of hyper-Preterism because hyper-Preterists
are fallible interpreters as well. Hence, hyper-Preterists out of pure
preference are inconsistently throwing away the fallible ‘Creeds’ and keeping
their own fallible interpretation of Scripture. Yet, what if your preference,
like mine, is to trust two-thousand years of consistent Church tradition? After
all, hyper-Preterists cannot produce one good reason, besides logical coherence
(an attribute imitated by Gnostics, Arians and orthodox and so not a
determining reason) to accept their fallible interpretation as normative over
the fallible orthodox interpretation.
On the other hand, the
orthodox camp is not as impoverished and has a few good arguments to present to
us. First, the fact that the ‘Creeds’ were formulated by fallible Christians
says nothing about their trustworthiness, as even hyper-Preterists
inconsistently agree in practice. Hyper-Preterists do not worry about the fact
that fallible men formulated which books were in the Cannon? They, thus assume
the trustworthiness of the ‘Creeds’ every time they open the Bible. In fact the
Church Fathers recognized the books sixty-six books of the Cannon because of
their conformity to the orthodox way of understanding the Gospel. Hyper-Preterists
are just being inconsistent, if the Creeds cannot be trusted to sum up
Scriptural teaching then they cannot be trusted to tell us which books are in
the Bible. Hyper-Preterists should also be aware that outside of the orthodox
paradigm’s conceptions of a traditional interpretation of Scripture and the
Holy Spirit’s consistent guidance though out Church history there is no good
argument for why these sixty-six books are in the Cannon. Yet, if tradition can
be trusted to get the Cannon right it can be trusted when it summarizes the
Cannon’s teaching.
Of course, hyper-Preterists
have another option open to them. If they do not want to follow the traditional
interpretation of Scripture they can consistently reject the traditional
interpretation of what books are in the Bible. Once this is done they could
just create their own community and their own Bible. You see, unlike
Dispensationalists and hyper-Preterists, Joseph Smith was a very consistent
Restorationist when he invented a new cannon. Sure hyper-Preterist could just
arbitrarily choose the sixty-six books, but my question to them is why would
you artificially restrict yourselves to that? How unoriginal is that? Why not
just put some of Samuel Frost’s books in the cannon? Why not make Frost Pope?
You can do whatever your wish. I mean if you have to reinvent the wheel every
time you open Scripture why not also reinvent the cannon every time you go to
read your Bible. Invent your own Church Fathers, your own cannon, and your own
culture. Place the fate of your own families, the fate of your accomplishments,
and the fate of your own money in a movement that had its origins in a corn
field. Risk everything to side against the last two-thousand years of the Holy
Spirit’s guidance. If you are going to sin against tradition you might as well
sin against it all. If you would rather side with the God of the Church
families, and with the Church’s cannon, then be brave and adopt both its Cannon
and tradition. If you reject its tradition because it’s fallible and you think
you have a better interpretation then reject the Cannon because the adoption of
that Cannon was motivated by the very tradition you unjustifiably abandon. The
risk is yours, as are the consequences. Yet, from my perspective, the God of
the Church Fathers, the Bible and the Christian community has proven Himself
over the years to be trustworthy. The universal Church has been around for
two-thousand years and is only getting stronger, I know of hyper-Preterists
churches that have only been around twenty years and have already fractured and
disintegrated. I doubt if hyper-Preterism will be around five hundred years
from now, so when you pick between these two paradigms choose wisely.
Why Proof Texting
will not Solve the Debate The implications of the above paragraph cannot be missed
for if the argumentation employed above is sound then it is impossible for an
orthodox person to absolutely falsify hyper-Preterism with a proof text. This
can be illustrated through a simple thought experiment. Suppose that I have
been able to convince a hyper-Preterists that there is no way a verse that says
that “The Lord Himself will come down from heaven…and the dead in Christ will
rise first. After that, we who are still alive will be caught up together with
them in the clouds… will be with the Lord forever” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
could not have been fulfilled in A.D. 70 because the death spoken about in v.16
is clearly physical, because being spiritual dead in Christ makes no sense, and
so v.17 teaches that those who are physically still alive when Christ returns
never die. Now, I am sure that some hyper-Preterists can explain this verse
away though reinterpretation but let us suppose for the sake of the thought
experiment that these arguments persuaded the hyper-Preterists. Does that mean
that the hyper-Preterists has to convert to orthodoxy? If he held to the
orthodox paradigm then yes, but then again if he held to the orthodox paradigm
he would not be a hyper-Preterists to begin with. Since the hyper-Preterists is
a Restorationist’s the answer is “absolutely not!” Using the Restorationist
paradigm they would have the option of throwing 1 Thessalonians out of the
Cannon. After all, it was the orthodox tradition that put it in the Cannon and
if a hyper-Preterists is committed to holding his interpretation of Scripture
as supreme then they, to be consistent with Restorationism, would have to
reject the orthodox Cannon. So it is impossible to logically disprove hyper-Preterism
with a verse. So it is just a waste of time to use logic and verses when
engaged in debates with hyper-Preterists. The only thing you can do is show
them what the correct interpretation is and hope that God’s spirit convicts
them, but do not be surprised if they are able to reinterpret any verse you
give them (Gnostics can do the same thing).
Conclusion The orthodox paradigm rules-out
from the start hyper-Preterists conclusions. As
Sam
Frost’s response
A
Response to An Orthodox Response to Hyper-Preterism
Tyler
Hicks has done what many thinking Preterists have wanted done for a long time.
A Response. Andrew Sandlin will not respond, taking the advice of Tertullian,
to heretics precisely because they are heretics. Therefore, Hicks response
deserves an equally swift rebuttal. I appreciate the fact that the tact he is
using in his response is, by and large, philosophical in nature. Never mind
what the Scriptures say, what do the creeds say. That, in a nutshell, is the
bulk of
Before
analyzing his nine page article, it is necessary, since I am a churchman
myself, to quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith. Since Hicks is so
fond of the Ecumenical Creeds (the early first seven creeds of the Roman
Catholic Church), and since none of those creeds teaches sola Scriptura (this
was Luther’s doctrine), I would like to point out to those reading this article
where the authority of Scriptures are placed in those Ecumenical Creeds. That
is, if I were to live my Christianity by the sole guidance of the Catholic
magisterium, the sole depositum fidei of God, then I would convert to
Catholicism in a heartbeat. In fact, my Catholic friends never tire of telling
me that sola Scriptura is not a teaching of the Creeds. Instead, the Roman
Catholic principle is roma locuta, causa finite (
Having
said that, I must prove that such is the position of Hicks, who writes for a
Reformed website titled Tota Reformanda. First, as mentioned, let me quote from
the Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which, when compared with
the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, is at direct odds with Hicks’ appeal
and argument. WCF 1.4: The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought
to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or
Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and
therefore it is to be received, because it as the Word of God. Now, compare
this to Hicks: “Although orthodox theologians are required to use responsible
creativity when they interpret Scripture, one essential component of
responsible creativity is that it is directed under the guidance of the
Creeds.” These are two radically different views for biblical hermeneutics. The
doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture goes out the window, for no one can read
the Bible without the schoolmaster guiding his decisions. This is exactly the
Roman Catholic position. For Hicks, just substitute the word “creeds” for
“Roman Councils” and you will see what I mean.
Further,
the WCF states, The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the
Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and
full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be
searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (1.9). 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 (1.10). From the statement
given by Hicks above, it now becomes clear that we are certainly operating from
two different paradigms. The WCF affirms that All synods or councils, since the
Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.
Therefore they are not to he made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be
used as a help in both (31.4). Hicks does not view the creeds as “helps” but as
“rules of faith and doctrine.” At this point, Hicks has left the Reformed
paradigm for a Catholic paradigm, but he is not Catholic (not yet, anyway), so
we might seek to call this by another name: Hyper-Creedalism. We cannot call
Logically,
once the possibility of error is admitted, the creeds are immediately subjected
to Scripture, which, in the Reformed paradigm, is where the buck stops. For
Reformed Biblicism the Scriptures do not err, cannot err, and have no
possibility of error. In the words of the Evangelical Theological Society, of
which I am a member, The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the
Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Now, if all
creeds and councils are subject to the possibility of error, which the WCF
asserts that they are, and the Bible is not subject to the possibility of
error, then, necessarily, the Bible must be the source from which the possibly
erring creeds get their authority. In other words, I am only obligated to
assent to “God, Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth” or that the Person
and Nature of Jesus in the Godhead is “Deum verum et hominem verum” only
because it lines up with the Scriptures. How, then, does one know if an article
of the creed lines up with the Scripture? Well, logically, we go to the source
(ad fontes). What Hicks does is start with the creeds and then reasons back to
the Scriptures. What the Reformers did was start with the Scriptures and then
analyzed the councils and creeds (Calvin explicitly practices this method in
Institutes 4.9.8). Hicks has demonstrated a Catholic methodology and nothing
else. I will show that he does this again, sounding like many of my Roman
Catholic brothers.
Hicks
does, however, to his merit, understand the presupposition question involved in
interpreting the Bible. In agreement with Gordon H. Clark Hicks writes, “As
noted scholar Douglas Wilson once remarked, “…Before we can understand our
debates with the hyper-Preterists, we have to recognize that it is not
fundamentally a debate about eschatology at all. The fundamental question is
one of authority”. The real question is not “should we read Scripture with or
without a paradigm,” but “which paradigm should we use?” This is entirely
correct. But, as has been already shown, Hicks opts for a hyper-creedalist
paradigm over and against a Reformed paradigm rooted in sola Scriptura.
The
article moves on to make the point that chess cannot be played with any other
rules other than chess. This is all Wittgensteinian and grand. It proves
nothing. I can make the same argument, having assumed that I am playing chess
(I am playing according to the Reformed rules) and Hicks is playing
tic-tac-toe. In an amazing petitio principii (begging the question) he writes,
“Just because a creative Hyper-Preterists can shove any verse into an
unorthodox conceptual box proves nothing and only succeeds in causing more
confusion and frustration. It certainly does not succeed in producing
theological victory as hyper-preterist’s think. Hyper-Preterists are merely
using the same tricks that Gnostics and Arians did to undermine orthodoxy, for
they too were able to fit Bible verses into their own unorthodox and mutually
exclusive conceptual boxes.” This assumes (begs the question) that Hicks has
the correct conceptual box. Notice that he does not seek to prove or
demonstrate that his box is indeed God’s box. The only thing he can demonstrate
is that the creeds teach a future end of the world coming of Christ. He has not
demonstrated that the Scriptures teach such a thing. But, on Hicks own
admission, noted above, he does not have to prove such a thing since we cannot
even read the Scripture apart from “the guidance of the Creeds.” The argument
is as follows: Premise A: the Creeds are Infallible because (Premise B ) they
are taught in the Bible, therefore, we do not need to argue the Bible apart
from the Creeds because the Creeds are what the Bible teaches. This is as
circular as one gets.
Hicks
then moves on to commit another logical error. He states, “Reason alone is thus
insufficient to interpret language. Unless reason has the tutelage of a whole
network of previous beliefs it is a blind and unreliable guide.” No Preterist
methodology that is worth its merit, and certainly not mine, asserts that
“reason alone” is sufficient. Thus, the argument is based on a false accusation
that implies that this is what we believe. Rather, the Reformed believe in
analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture). Richard Muller, professor at Calvin
Theological Seminary, defines this as follows: “the interpretation of unclear,
difficult, or ambiguous passages of Scripture by comparison with clear and
unambiguous passages that refer to the same teaching or event” (Dictionary of
Latin and Greek Theological Terms, Baker, 1985, 33). Hicks does not affirm this
at all. Rather, in his view, the Scriptures are to be interpreted within the
assumed conceptual box of the creeds. This is all fine and dandy for Hicks’
position if he wants to subscribe to it. Just don’t call it Reformed
methodology. Call it what it is: Roman Catholic methodology under Reformed
sheep clothes.
Further,
he stated that reason must have a tutelage of a whole network of previous
beliefs. However, if “reason alone is insufficient to interpret language” and
“previous beliefs” are made up of language, then how can anyone ever arrive at
any belief at all? If I have to interpret through a set of previous beliefs the
language of my previous beliefs, where do I, then, begin the process? Aside
from this ad infinitum problem, Hicks has implied his real source of authority:
himself. Hicks does not start with the Bible, nor does he actually start with
the creeds. He starts with himself. He sees himself as a person who has a
“whole network of previous beliefs” combined with reason. He defines “good
sense” as “(i.e. a combination of reason and a whole network of beliefs).” This
is Hicks starting point. Hicks assumes that he has, a) good sense; B ) reason;
c) a network of previous beliefs. Since he estimates that he has all of these
working, then he can come to Scripture and “interpret” it correctly, more or
less. But, would we not have to first define “good sense” (sensations? or
sense-meaning?), Reason (Hegel, Kant, Clark, Polkingthorne, Santanya or Fichte
– choose a definition), and Hicks’ network of previous beliefs? How do I know
that his “network” is correct? How does he know? How could one say in their own
“network” that “belief T is false, but belief R©3 is correct?” It appears,
then, that before Hicks can get to the task at hand of interpreting the Bible,
he has to first unravel and reason through all of these previous beliefs that
he has. Isn’t it easier, more Evangelical and more Reformed to simply say: “the
Bible is the word of God, written” and “The Scriptures are the Supreme Judge by
which all matters of religious controversy are to be settled?” Which one should
the Christian adopt: All Scripture is God-breathed or “I have to first unravel
my network of previous beliefs, use good sense (whatever that is) and Reason
(whatever that is) and then come to the Bible”?
So
far, the Preterist has nothing to fear from Hicks’ essay. He has offered nothing
that would overturn or thwart the paradigm of biblical authority that the Preterist
stands on. Yet, Hicks continues on as if he has something here that undermines
the entire Preterist enterprise. And, since I get paid to do this, I have no
problems responding to them one by one.
The
paper goes on a little more about how “reason alone” is not enough (which I
never subscribed to Hegelianism or Ayn Rand, so the point is worthless). Yet,
he does eventually wander into Scripture, quoting Mat 16.28 and then offering
N.T. Wright’s commentary on Mat 28.18. Of course, this proves nothing in that
N.T. Wright (referred to also as a heretic, as Douglas Wilson, Norman Shepherd
and Steve Schlissel have been called by other
Reformed brothers) is an Episcopalian Bishop of
The
reader might think that I am, perhaps, not representing Hicks’ view fairly.
Yet, he writes again affirming that “Under the guidance of the Creeds the
orthodox interpreter employs ‘good sense’ when it comes to interpreting
Scripture.” It is not under the guidance of the Bible, but under the guidance
of the Creeds when you read the Bible. The Bible, then, is not the authority.
Rather, the creeds are. The Bible is subjected to their guidance and not the other
way around. Ask yourself if the parent who “guides” the child is in control.
The thing that “guides” is the thing that yields the power of control over the
thing “guided” (the Bible). Make no mistake about it: this is brother Hicks’
position.
Again,
so as to be clear, let me quote him after he has made the effort to support his
doctrine of the Second Coming: “Now the orthodox paradigm teaches that under no
circumstance can the nature of Christ’s return be revised (like the Jehovah
Witnesses and hyper-Preterists have done) and so ‘good sense’ would lead the
orthodox to prefer NT Wright’s more plausible interpretation of the verse.
Interpreting Scripture requires us to use paradigms.” The “orthodox paradigm”
is simply another name for “the Creeds.” Secondly, “good sense” has not been
defined adequately. Third, Wright’s “more plausible” interpretation is true
only if the assumed “orthodox paradigm” is true, regardless of the damage it
does to Scripture. Fourth, he again asserts that no one can truly appreciate
Scripture without the “orthodox paradigm” (creeds). Hicks has demonstrated
nothing but his own methodology over and against the
Reformed methodology.
There
has been much talk about “paradigms” in this article. Hicks’ view opts for a
foreign paradigm developed some three hundred years after the last book of the
Bible was written. Indeed, as already stated, paradigms are necessary. The
question is not “whether or not to have a paradigm” but “what paradigm.” It is
plain in the Preterist estimation that the Bible affords its own paradigm. That
is, the paradigm the biblical exegete seeks to use is not derived from the
pages of councils and creeds, but from the pages of the sacra pagina. The Bible gives us just such a paradigm: the age
and the age to come. Within this model, we find old and new covenants, each
corresponding to the ages, respectively. This simple model, carried with the
hermeneutics of historical criticism and linguistic attentiveness, affords such
a Rahmenerzählung that a powerful case for the Glorious
Appearing of Israel’s Messiah (the Christ) occurred in the close of that
“present evil age” in order to establish and usher in the glorious “age to
come.” In fact, according to Wright, we are living in the age to come. But, the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states that “we look forward to the age to
come.” Wright disagrees with the creed here. Therefore, according to Hicks’
reasoning, Wright is “unorthodox.”
Hicks’
continues to offer a caricature of Preterist apologetics that, for one that has
been a lecturer and author of Preterist materials for over a decade, makes it
look as if he does not really understand the system as a whole. He goes on to
comment on the American industrialization of the nineteenth century, which, as
a causal argument, is entirely irrelevant. Marx argued that the fault of the
world is moved by Capitalism and Adam Smith. Astrologers argue that my
footsteps are guided by planetary motions and solar flares. Hicks’ point: Preterism
came as a result of American industrialism and varied restorationists
(like the Mormons, JWs, and the like). However, these
are all Protestant movements which, as a Catholic I could argue all sprang from
that silly little monk Martin Luther and his partner in crime John Calvin. In
conclusion of this section Hicks, disparagingly, remarks, “American
Restorationists tend to treat the Bible as if it was a document that only
appears to be a human document but in reality fell from heaven and is thus best
interpreted without knowledge of the Bible’s history or a historic community of
interpreters to draw from.” Interestingly enough, this is the very same
argument Roman Catholic apologist Scott Hahn uses against Reformed apologetes. It is a remark aimed against sola Scriptura.
Nonetheless,
Hicks continues to give a mini history lesson which leads to even more reckless
statements. “Hyper-Preterists basically read Jesus as if he had thought in
dispensationalists categories. So, when Jesus used words like ‘soon’ and ‘this
generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ hyper-Preterists
mistook Jesus to have been speaking in a wooden fashion like a
Dispensationalists.” So, let me get this straight: “soon” and “this generation”
are not to be taken in a “wooden literal” fashion, but “then the Lord will step
on the Mount of Olives, with both sides of the mountain moving eastward and
westward” is to be taken literally? It is Hicks that believes that a large
Jesus, physically, literally and bodily is returning again. We can have a
debate over “literal” and “metaphorical” all day long. The bottom line is how
the Scriptures consistently use the language. Chrysostom, fourth century, wrote
that “this generation” meant “that generation” in A.D. 70. Chrysostom was not a Dispensationalist nor a Preterist. Hicks’ point here
is equally irrelevant.
I
argued, plausibly enough, that Preterism is part of a long development of Preterism
from the second century onwards. Scholarship has taken a shift from viewing the
Bible in abstract to more concrete historical hermeneutics rooted in the first
century. What did the epistle of Romans mean to them? Original audience
relevance is the key on which all modern hermeneutics is built. This was not
the case prior to the Reformation as so many scholars of Luther and Calvin have
noted. Calvin was one of the first to apply historical exegesis to the Bible,
primarily to the New Testament. Shortly, within 200 years, Preterism was making
its case and by the early nineteenth century full-Preterism emerged as a result
of protestant hermeneutics. This is all exhaustively covered in my book
Misplaced Hope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology
(Bi-Millennial Publications, 2002). My “mini-history” here is just as
reasonable as Hicks’. But, one should know that arguing cause and effect in
history is a bad, bad place to build an argument. I could equally argue that JWs, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Muslim eschatology
and the Branch Davidians are all equally false
because they are based on a false creedal futuristic eschatology. In short, if
Jesus returned again “a second time unto salvation” then with one fell swoop
all of these false religions are destroyed before they even begin since they
are all eschatological-restorationist movements based
on the false paradigm of creedal eschatology.
What
is so interesting here is that Hicks’ follows N.T. Wright, who unquestionably
states that “this generation” can only refer to the that generation of the
first century. All of Hicks’ talk of “literalism” and “metaphors” is largely a
waste of paper. What is more interesting is that Hicks actually talks himself
out of the original point he is making. On page 2 he wrote, “The orthodox need
to start demanding serious argumentation from the hyper-Preterists for their
position.” Then, after a few pages wrote, “Thus the struggle between
Dispensationalists and hyper-Preterists is really a family dispute. The
orthodox should avoid entering this debate at all costs because it is boring
and unproductive from an orthodox standpoint.” If Hicks is a Van Tilian it is understandable that he can contradict himself
and see no problem. But, for logic, one is confused as to whether he wants a
debate on these issues or does not. Perhaps it is a “paradox.”
He
then goes on to quote Richard Pratt. Pratt wrote, “With these words Paul
divided all of history into two periods: “the present age” and “the one to
come.” His meaning is unlike our modern use of these terms. Paul did not refer
to our current time and the time after Christ’s return. Instead, he followed
the common Rabbinical use of these categories to describe the time before the
coming of Messiah (“this age”) and the time introduced by the appearance of
Messiah (“the age to come”). For Paul “this age” referred to all that had
happened in history before Christ; “the [age] to come” referred to everything
after his first coming” (Pratt, Jr, Richard L, He
Gave Us Stories: The Bible Student’s Guide to Interpreting Old Testament
Narratives, (P & R Publishing, 1990), 340). I have already mentioned that
Wright places the church age in the “age to come” and here Pratt does the same
thing. This would, upon Hicks’ view, make Pratt a heretic. That’s two heretics
that Hicks quotes to support his view!
As
stated, the Nicene Creed states that “and I look forward to life in the age to
come.” In all the Apostolic Fathers the “age to come” is future, post A.D. 70.
Equally, the Chalcedonian Creed used the phrase “and
in these last days” to refer to their time in the fourth century A.D.
Therefore, according to the creeds, the age to come is future and the last days
characterize the current situation. However, for Wright and many, many other
Reformed thinkers, the “last days” were specifically the last days of the
Jewish commonwealth under the old covenant and when ‘the end of the age’ (Mat 24.3)
came, the ‘age to come’ was fully ushered in. Yet, these same theologians admit
that there still is a future, bodily coming of the Lord! I am not sure what
Hicks’ thinks of the “last days” and the “age to come,” but he should not quote
from two men, Pratt and Wright, that go against the creeds on this point.
In
another example of “my conceptual box is better than yours” Hicks writes,
“hyper-Preterism is the result of trying to fit every verse into a previously
established conceptual box.” But this is exactly what he argued for in the
beginning of the paper! Hicks argued that he interprets Scripture to fit the
conceptual box of his previously established paradigm of the creeds! If “trying
to fit” means “systematically organizing a harmony of Scripture so that each
part fits within the unitary whole of the Bible” then I stand guilty. But Hicks
does not do so. His system is an attempt to “fit” the Bible in with the
hyper-creedalist paradigm, even if it does damage to the Bible. Remember, in
his view, the Creeds are the “guide”, not the Bible. Preterists are faulted if
they begin with the Bible.
Now,
from this Hicks argues that if the Preterists are right methodologically, then
“there is no way to ‘check and balance’ an individual’s interpretation of the
Bible. The Bible becomes simply my individual interpretation.” Interestingly
enough, John Eck, who grilled Luther in the Diet of Worms, used this very same
argument, and Calvin picks up on it as well, demolishing it. It is a non-sequitor. I bring up Luther again because Hicks writes,
“Martin Luther used the traditional interpretation of Scripture to get away
from
There
are a few things that need to be unpacked from this arrogant statement.
Apparently, country bumpkins cannot know the Bible because they are too stupid.
The next thing you know Hicks will be arguing that we should have kept the
Bible in Latin so that the “vulgar” people could not read the Bible. Hicks is
sounding more and more like a Catholic in the 16th century! Aside from this, he
is apparently under the false impression that Preterism developed outside of
the great two-thousand year dialogue of the church. In my book, already
mentioned, I base my entire argument on the esteemed Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof and his theory of “organic-development.” Preterism
developed from within the church, not from without. Hicks is attempting to
falsely represent Preterists as doing theology outside mainstream
Evangelicalism. Mormons do that. So do Jehovah’s Witnesses. They deliberately
cut themselves off from outside dialogue and debate. I became a Preterist
because I was reading Evangelical theology. It was Gentry,
How
does Hicks defend the statement that he makes: “If Jesus really has kept His
promise and guided His Church throughout the centuries then it makes sense to
look to the Creeds for guidance”? Was Jesus guiding his church for the first
fifteen hundred years? This, again, is a strong Roman Catholic argument.
However, it immediately places the WCF in a bad light. If the WCF states that
creeds may and have erred, then did Jesus guide the church into error? Surely
not even Hicks would states that every creed and every statement is infallible.
Yet, how does he know which one is and which one is not? Would he not have to
appeal to the Bible?
No
one is objecting that doctrine needs no checks and balances. That is why iron
sharpens iron. Hicks appear to be laboring under the notion that to reject any
wording, any phrase, and word of the creeds is to give up all words, phrases
and wording of the creeds. Obviously, I use the WCF, so this is flat out not
true. Creeds are what the WCF called them, quoted above: “helps.” But, they are
not insuperable boundaries that one cannot dare question. One must question
them based on the fact that they are not infallible statements of Scripture and
have and may err. I am a Trinitarian based on the fact that the Bible teaches
what is so affirmed in the creeds. I used the Chalcedonian
and Athanasian creeds to “help” my understanding and
the “check and balance” of the Bible developed within me a conviction that
Athanasius, not Arius, had it closer to the mark. But I did not blindly affirm
and assent to the Trinity simply because the creeds said so. Such a “religion”
is morally wrong and tyrannical over the God-given conscience of men who follow
hard after God. Hicks would simply have one follow the creeds simply because
they are the creeds, period. At least that is the impression I get from this
essay.
Hicks,
in another example of arrogance, writes, “Having seen that hyper-Preterism and
Dispensationalism belong to the Restorationist paradigm and not the orthodox
paradigm, we can now intelligibly ask the question what about the rest of us
who do not want to play the game at all? Personally, I find the game boring and
fault the two players for lack of creativity.” This again contradicts his
original argument that we should “argue” with the Preterist scheme. If it is so
boring, why did Keith Mathison edit a massive
response in When Shall These Things Be? Why has Jay E. Adams and several others
written extensively on the subject. Why is Kenneth Gentry “alarmed” at the
growth of Preterism in the church? If, as Hicks states, Preterism is so
dangerous and heretical, but, at the same time, is growing (by all accounts),
then how could he find such a dangerous heresy “boring”? This is just his own prideful remark and has nothing to do with the
argument at hand.
Hicks
then moves on to consider the nature of fallibility, which again, is
irrelevant. Reformed thinking has always asserted the fallibility of tradition,
or the possibility thereof. Hence the phrase semper
Reformanda. Secondly, again, he falsely thinks that Preterists “throw out
everything” if they throw out some things. Besides the fact that this is just
bad logic (the inference is false), it’s just plainly false.
He appears everywhere to be under the impression that to reject any tradition
of the church is to reject all of it. Yet, Hicks is not a Roman Catholic.
Nonetheless, listen to this very Roman Catholic argument: “Hyper-Preterists do
not worry about the fact that fallible men formulated which books were in the
Cannon? They, thus assume the trustworthiness of the ‘Creeds’ every time they
open the Bible. In fact the Church Fathers recognized the books sixty-six books
of the Cannon because of their conformity to the orthodox way of understanding
the Gospel. Hyper-Preterists are just being inconsistent, if the Creeds cannot
be trusted to sum up Scriptural teaching then they cannot be trusted to tell us
which books are in the Bible.” This is about as bad an argument as one can
make. I wonder what he would do with Martin Luther’s Prefaces to James and
Revelation?! The canon of the Scripture was determined because of the internal
material of their writings, date, and acceptance. F.F. Bruce masterfully
destroys such an argument in his book The Canon of Scripture (1980, IVP). The
canon did not “drop out of the sky” either but underwent “tests” to secure its
trustworthiness. But what is equally alarming here is the fact that Hicks omits
the Apocrypha! He only mentions sixty-six books. On his argument, I can very
easily support the Roman Catholic view that the Apocrypha is indeed to be
included in the canon. In other words, how does Hicks know that I Maccabees is not inspired, but Revelation is? Hicks needs to go back and read the Council of Carthage in
389 A.D. that decided the canon and this included the Apocrypha. The Councils
after that affirmed this. Now, Hicks has painted himself into a corner here.
Finally,
Hicks concludes with a massive tour de force of illogical reasoning: “Of
course, hyper-Preterists have another option open to them. If they do not want
to follow the traditional interpretation of Scripture they can consistently
reject the traditional interpretation of what books are in the Bible. Once this
is done they could just create their own community and their own Bible. You
see, unlike Dispensationalists and hyper-Preterists, Joseph Smith was a very
consistent Restorationists when he invented a new cannon. Sure hyper-Preterist
could just arbitrarily choose the sixty-six books, but my question to them is
why would you artificially restrict yourselves to that? How unoriginal is that?
Why not just put some of Samuel Frost’s books in the cannon? Why not make Frost
Pope? You can do whatever your wish. I mean if you have to reinvent the wheel
every time you open Scripture why not also reinvent the cannon every time you
go to read your Bible. Invent your own Church Fathers, your own cannon, and
your own culture. Place the fate of your own families, the fate of your
accomplishments, and the fate of your own money in a movement that had its
origins in a corn field. Risk everything to side against the last two-thousand
years of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. If you are going to sin against tradition
you might as well sin against it all. If you would rather side with the God of
the Church families, and with the Church’s cannon, then be brave and adopt both
its Cannon and tradition. If you reject its tradition because it’s fallible and
you think you have a better interpretation then reject the Cannon because the
adoption of that Cannon was motivated by the very tradition you unjustifiably
abandon. The risk is yours, as are the consequences” (the misspellings are
his). It is plain from the above nonsense that Hicks is entirely unaware of Preterist
methodology. The argument sounds like a desperate novice Roman Catholic apologete. Preterism had its origins in a cornfield? Pope
Frost? See, his reasoning is plainly clear here: if you reject one, you must
reject all. But this is a false inference, logically speaking. If I reject
poodles, do I reject all dogs? If I have lied once, is all that I say a lie?
But, this is exactly Hicks’ reasoning and there is no actual response to it
simply because it is illogical and nonsense.
In
conclusion, I have shown quite plainly that Hicks contradicts himself in places,
uses a Roman Catholic methodology over and against a Reformed one, distances
himself from the WCF and sola Scriptura, adduces irrelevant material to “prove”
his case, attacks the man rather than the issue, quotes N.T. Wright and Richard
Pratt, both of who directly contradict the creeds in places, does not follow
his own advice, and, in the end, offers no defense whatsoever of anything but
converting to Roman Catholicism. In short, if this is the best that Hicks can
come up with, then the future of Preterism can remain rest assured of its
continued growth and success. This is not the first time God has breathed and
moved the church to fight against tyranny, and here we have a defense from
Hicks of the tyranny of the mind. Hicks’ main thrust in this paper is submit
blindly to the creeds. If you reject one jot or tittle,
then you must reject everything for the last 2,000 years of church history. The
Creeds, not the Bible, is the true rule of faith and practice. The Bible is
just a mere subjugated book to be “guided” and “checked” by the creeds of man.
In short, man must keep a check on the Bible, rather than the Bible keep a
check on man. The articles of man and his traditions are far more superior to
the Bible. If Hicks is not asserting this, then he must conclude that the
creeds are fallible (though they may be trustworthy in places), and we only
know of error through the Bible. If the Creeds have any merit whatsoever, it is
because they line up with the Supreme Judge. God has, collectively, within the
Holy Congregation of 2,000 years, given us the right to judge the opinions of
men and to develop with one another in a steady stream of what that development
leads to, and if, on the way, we have discovered through time that we have been
asserting a doctrine that does not have the Bible’s stamp of approval, then we,
as servants of Christ, must reject that doctrine. We do so with Luther: on the
basis of the reason and Scripture, with a clear conscience before God and man.
Hicks, on the other hand, condemns a person even if he so dares question the
creeds. To even question the creeds is akin to questioning God himself. Thus,
it is not so far a toss to equate Hicks view as creedolytry.
What is especially frightening in all of this is that he attempts to pass himself
off as Reformed, writing for a Reformed website (Tota Reformanda), but how far
is this website really committed to that slogan? It appears that it is
committed only insofar as one dare not question the creeds. The only question
now is, which creeds? Which councils? There are more than seven of them. Why
does Hicks arbitrarily pick out seven, reject
Samuel
M. Frost, M.A.R.
President,
*Solo
Scriptura is the view that we should individually retreat to our back yard and
use our interpretation of Scripture to remove any line of Christendom’s
Ecumenical Creeds we disagree with.
*Sola
Scriptura is the view that God’s Word is the final authority and that the
Ecumenical Creed’s authority is derived from the authority of Scripture. God’s
Holy Spirit has faithfully guided the Church and protected the historic and
authentic interpretation of Scripture and thus everything the Creeds say are
true and can be affirmed by all Christians. In short Christians are to use the
Creeds as guides to interpreting Scripture.
Although
it is true that “solo” and “sola” are translatable the phrases are still useful
because they refer to two different positions. Nonetheless if someone refuses
to employ that vocabulary then he need only replace ‘Sola Scripture’ for ‘the
Reformed doctrine of Scripture’ and ‘Solo Scriptura’ for ‘the Restorationist’s
doctrine of Scripture’.
When
Samuel Frost describes the Ecumenical Creeds as “the early first seven creeds
of the Roman Catholic Church” (Frost), he is naively assuming that the Catholic
Church of the Church Fathers is identical to the current Roman Catholic Church
but this assumption is not shared by the Reformers. In fact it is a simple
contradiction in terms to suggest that the “Ecumenical Creeds” are “Roman
Catholic”, since the Creeds honoree title of ‘Ecumenical’ comes from its
universal adoption by all who rightly claim to be Christian. Orthodox, Roman
Catholic, and Protestant all subscribe equal allegiance to these Creeds. Church
Fathers, like
Frost
not only failed to distinguish the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura from the
Restorationist’s doctrine of Solo Scriptura, but he lumped them together in the
hopes that he might confuse those who have never known of the distinction
before. Frost offered a marvelous defense of the Jehovah Witnesses, Dispensationalists,
Mormons and Hyper-Preterists view that the best way to interpret Scripture is
to retreat into your backyard. However, Frost’s offer to interpret the
Scriptures without the checks and balances of the ‘tyrannical’ creeds is only
attractive to those who do not really know the evil of the human heart. A
fallen conscience is not that ‘infallible’ guide to freedom that Frost, if his
is consistent, thinks it is. Those who trust in the wisdom of men will be
disappointed. Frost thinks that if you are not a Restorationist then you have
to be a Roman Catholic (which is not that strong of an argument anyway since
given these two choices I would rather become Roman Catholic, but thankfully
there is another option). The world, in Frost’s mind, is only big enough for
these two categories. Yet, why doesn’t Frost’s view have room for the
Reformation view that the Ecumenical Creeds are only summaries of Scriptures
teachings and represent the historical interpretation of Scripture. I guess
when you want to spiritualize everything away so that it can fit into A.D. 70
then the thought that God might actually be directing the course of physical
history so that it preserves His truth never crosses the mind but for those of
us who think that God is moving in Church history we would expect God to have
protected His truth with Creeds throughout the ages.
Frost
is not really using Scripture alone for he too has his Creed that he uses to
guide his interpretation. He just has not written it down which leaves us to
wonder why he, like every other Restorationists, refuses to state his creed
clearly. The question is not to have a creed or not. As Keith Mathison writes, “The question is which creed will one
have- the Christian creed or a creed of one’s own devising?” Frost may think that
he does not have a creed or paradigm or that he just gets his paradigm from the
Bible but that is because when it comes to that issue he holds to an outdated
philosophical view that has been repeatedly pointed out to be in error by
Thomas Kuhn and others (See my arguments for the position that you need Creeds
or paradigms or previous theological convictions before you interpret
Scripture). Yes, you interpret ‘Scripture with Scripture’ but this does not
rule out the roll of Creeds for you can only interpret Scripture with Scripture
once you already have a paradigm to interpret some Scripture with so that you
can interpret the rest of Scripture in light of those verses you were able to
interpret with your paradigm. It is simple mistakes like this that make me
think that Samuel Frost is good at languages but he should really leave the
philosophical issues to the philosophers.
Given
the Restorationist paradigm it is ironic that Frost uses a Confession to try to
undermine the Creeds instead of a Scriptural proof text but that is exactly
what one finds in his critique. The observant reader will also notice that my
entire argument is perfectly compatible with the idea that the Creeds were
formulated by fallible ‘synods and councils’ and the Reformed idea that “All
synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular,
may err; and many have erred.” After all, if the fallibility of the men who
made the Creeds in the past was really an argument against the truthfulness of
the Creeds themselves then it is equally an argument against the truthfulness
of the interpretations of fallibke hyper-Preterists
who have made reasoning mistakes before. My argument is not that synods and
councils are always trustworthy but that two-thousand years of the Holy Spirit’s
guidance of the Church is always trustworthy. Thus Frost’s comments about the
Does
Frost really understand what my argument really is all about? Let us compare
Frost’s assessment of my argument with my own assessment. Frost clearly reveals
his assessment of my argument when he magically and uncharitably reduces my
entire paper to this naive sentence, “Never mind what the Scriptures say, what
do the creeds say. That, in a nutshell, is the bulk of
Frost
would rather fight staw men than my paper and so we
are left to speculate what is the true motivation for Frost’s wanting to keep
Christians from using the historic creeds of Christianity as normative guides
for interpreting Scripture and why he refuses to spell out his own creeds.
Douglas Wilson answer is worth repeating here:
“Liars
are experts in chopping logic and missing the truth slightly- “Did God say not
to eat from any tree?” In order to pin a liar down, words must be defined in
the most careful manner available. In this context, the only man who needs to
be more precise than a lair is the man who would catch the liar. This is why
people who hate the Bible say they want the language of the Bible, not the
language of creeds, and why men who faithfully apply a faithful creed
(containing words and language found nowhere in Scriptures), are doing exactly
what the Bible requires of them. “Thou hast tried them which say” (Rev. 2:2).
The nature of the testing can and should include very carefully crafted verbal
formulae designed to trip up the dishonest. “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God” (1 John 4:3)”(
Frost
and the orthodox both have their creeds but they are different in that one of
the creeds has been held by a Christians in every century and has been used to
fight heresy and the other was invented in the nineteenth century and has
produced heresy ever since. Whose paradigm would you rather use? As for me and
my house we will trust the Lord’s leading throughout Church history. As a
Restorationist’s Frost has thrown out the Christian Creeds for ones of his own
making and so the natural question is how does Frost know which books are
supposed to be in the Bible? Since Frost cannot consistently appeal to
tradition or history since by his standards he has to first have Scripture
before he can even know if the historical tradition is correct. So what
knock-down argument does Frost have for the sixty-six books of the Bible? I was
hoping to hear some great argument that I could use against atheists but none
was found. In fact, his silence spoke louder than words for it shows that
Restorationist Frost has no argument and therefore cannot possibly ‘know’ what
Books are supposed to be in Scripture. I mean really what verse for example
says that the Song of Solomon is supposed to be in the Bible. Yet, if he does
not even know what books are Scriptural then he is in no position to even
challenge orthodoxy for it is only upon the Word of God that theological
challenges should be uttered. The orthodox of course are not so helpless for
they can appeal to the historical interpretation of these books as inspired to
know which books are in the Bible and which books are not and so they have
every right to challenge hyper-Preterists from Scripture.
There
is much more to be said about the Cannon but I will have to wait till later to
say it. Laroi, John and I are currently working on a
more full response. I cannot wait to hear what Laroi
is going to say about the Cannon and John about the correct Scriptural
paradigm. I trust that the hyper-Preterists will be respectful and wait to
respond to this post till then.
May
God continue to preserve His truth throughout the generations as we wait for
that Blessed hope that all Christians long for.
as of 3-2006