If Futurism Is True, Are Preterists Anathema?

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:16-18).

In the above scripture, Paul said the following about those who say “the resurrection is past”:

1. Their words are to be shunned.
2. Their words increase to more ungodliness.
3. Their words are “profane and vain babblings.”
4. Their words eat like a “canker” (gangrene).
5. They have erred (missed the mark) concerning the truth.
6. They “overthrow the faith of some.”
If preterists today are wrong when they say “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is past, are preterists under the condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus?
A: IF “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 is not past, and
B: IF preterists say that it is past,
C: THEN preterists are to be shunned. Our words advance ungodliness. Our words are profane and vain babblings. Our words eat like gangrene. We have missed the mark concerning the truth. We are faith-overthrowers.
IF A and B are true, then it irresistibly follows that C is true, according to 2 Timothy 2:16-18.
There are only two ways a futurist can avoid viewing preterists as “Hymenaeans”:
1. A futurist can hold that it is possible that “the resurrection” in 2 Timothy 2:18 does not refer to the yet-future resurrection of the dead, but that it refers to a resurrection-event that occurred in AD 70. (Keith Mathison allows for this possibility. Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan both teach that there was a resurrection in AD 70.)
2. The futurist can hold that it is theoretically possible that futurism could be wrong. This admission would allow the futurist to (at least tentatively) embrace preterists as brothers in Christ.
Short of these two options, there is no way for a futurist to avoid condemning preterists and remain obedient to Scripture (2 Timothy 2:16-18) as it is interpreted within the futurist framework.
This, however, is not the end of the story. Under the futurist assumption, we preterists are teaching a false gospel only because of 2 Timothy 2:16-18. If those three verses did not exist, futurists would have no compelling, biblical basis (under the futurist assumption) for saying that preterists are teaching a damnable heresy. Under the futurist assumption, preterism is an error of course; but there is no systematic, theological basis for anathematizing preterists. There is only 2 Timothy 2:16-18 suspended in midair in an exegetical vacuum.
This clues us in to the fact that the preterist-anathematizing, futurist approach to 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is not on solid biblical ground. The anathema is based on one proof text. We cannot authoritatively base a doctrine on one proof text. How much less can we base an anathema against professing Christians on one proof text?
Futurists must ignore this exegetical and ethical problem and simply smuggle the assumption of futurism into 2 Timothy 2:16-18 in order to maintain their anathema based on those three verses. Their anathematizing use of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is based on the fallacy of “question begging” and on their a priori (extra-biblical) assumption of our doctrinal guilt. In essence, those verses condemn us only because futurists assume (based on their framework) that those verses condemns us. Without that extra-biblical assumption, the anathema cannot be long maintained.
So yes, within the futurist framework there is a theologically baseless justification for anathematizing preterists, based solely on 2 Timothy 2:16-18 as it is interpreted under the futurist assumption. It is only within the context of proof-texting, logical fallacy, and assumption of guilt that futurists are “justified” in anathematizing preterists.
David Green

Major Announcement: Preterite Commentary on Thessalonians is Now Ready!

An Exciting Major Announcement!
Book Release:
We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding of the King of kings
by Don K. Preston
A Major Commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13f
1 Thessalonians 4:13f is one of the most important of all Bible prophecies of the “end times.”
The Dispensationalist says it predicts the Rapture at the end of the Christian Age.
The Amillennialists says it is the removal of the earth at the end of time.
The Postmillennialists says it is the literal coming of Christ at the end of the Christian Age.
All three major views of Thessalonians are wrong, dead wrong!
1 Thessalonians 4:13f has nothing to do with the end of time and human history.
1 Thessalonians has nothing to do with a removal of the church from earth, whether first century or at the end of the Christian Age. Period!
These are bold statements, but in an exciting major announcement, JaDon Management and Don K. Preston is thrilled to announce the completion of a comprehensive new commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4! This work has been years in the making, but it is finally ready and you can order your’s today!
The book is entitled:
We Shall Meet Him In The Air, The Wedding of the King of kings!
This major work (450+ pages, with indices), examines every eschatological text in the Thessalonian epistles to help set the proper context for understanding chapter 4. In addition, the book offers:
An extensive examination of the Death of Adam
An extensive discussion of the Atonement of Christ
The Prophetic Theme of the Messianic Temple
The Prophetic Theme of the Re-Marriage of Israel
Preston demonstrates that key themes from the OT lie behind Thessalonians, themes that are normally ignored in modern studies of the text.
Further, you will be amazed at what Preston calls the “Theological Atom Bomb” that lies right on the surface of Thessalonians. This powerful and convincing linguistic study builds on the world’s best scholarship to establish beyond doubt that Thessalonians is not about the removal of the church from earth, at any time, past or present! This is fantastic information and you will be amazed at the scholarly support that Preston brings to bear.
We Shall Meet Him:
Refutes dispensationalism.
Refutes the AD 70 rapture doctrine. This is the most extensive study of this doctrine that has been written.
Refutes Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mathison’s new books, He Shall Have Dominion and From Age To Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology. This is devastating material, not found anywhere else!
Here is what some scholars are saying about We Shall Meet Him:
Dale Allison
Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.>
Dr. Andrew Perriman:
Author of The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church and Re: Mission: Biblical Mission for a Post-Biblical Church, and founder of the Open Source Theology website.>
Don K. Preston is a consummate researcher and writer, passionate regarding the importance of a clear understanding of scripture, especially as it relates to Eschatology. In this outstanding book on I Thessalonians 4, Brother Preston seeks to present a comprehensive and compelling look at key controversies related to the end times.
With excellent research, clear logic and grace Don presents his argument, leaving it to the reader to make final conclusions. Let the reader beware. this is not a work for the novice, but will definitely challenge the reader to search the scriptures fully; for “in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me.”
Stan E. DeKoven, Ph.D., MFT
President and Founder: Vision International College and University
Ramona, CA.>
There is literally not another book like We Shall Meet Him In The Air! This is the very first, and only, full length preterite commentary on 1 Thessalonians 4:13f.
If you have been looking for answers about 1 Thessalonians 4:13f you absolutely must have this new book! This is the book that the preterist community has been waiting for! This book will answer the critics like nothing else, with solid, irrefutable, scholarly exegesis. Put this book at the top of your “Must Have” list!
You can order your copy today, by sending a check or MO to:
Don K. Preston
JaDon Management Inc.
1405 4th Ave. N. W. #109
Ardmore, Ok. 73401
Price is $23.95 + $4.50 shipping, for a total of $28.45.
You can also use PayPal, although the book is not yet listed on my websites– but will be shortly.
You can send the funds directly to me using PayPal (dkpret@cableone.net). Be sure to make a note informing me that you are ordering We Shall Meet Him In The Air.

What About The Creeds And Church History?

What About the Creeds and Church History?

by Don K. Preston

In the ongoing controversy about Covenant Eschatology, one of the main arguments being proposed by the opponents of true preterism is that of church history and the church creeds. The church simply could not have been wrong for so long on such a critical issue . No church creed espouses true preterism. Thus, preterism is false. This argument seems to carry a good bit of weight with those of the Reformed school especially, and, as we shall see, this is a strange irony to be sure.

I intend in this brief article to simply set forth a few “bullet points” as food for thought in regard to the issue of the creeds. For a fuller, excellent discussion from the Reformed perspective, see House Divided: A Reformed Response to When Shall These Things Be, available from this website.

The Reformation and The Creeds

To say the very least, those who appeal to the historical creeds as proof that true preterism is false are involved in an irony of major proportions. In fact, they are making the precise argument that the Roman Catholic church offered against Martin Luther! Read the words of the Roman Emperor Charles V: “For it is certain that a single brother is in error if he stands against the opinion of the whole of Christendom, as otherwise Christendom would have erred for a thousand years or more.” (Cited in Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn, www.truthinliving.org).

Likewise, Yohann Eck, arguing against Luther said to him: “Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics! How can you of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the mostassume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that holy orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed throughout the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by [Mother Church] and [her Creeds] to debate lest there be no end of debate.”(Found at http://en.believethesign.com/index.php?title=Martin_Luther).

That sounds amazingly close to, “If preterism is true we have been wrong all these years! This doctrine violates the creeds!” It sounds like, “The creeds set the boundaries of orthodoxy.” It sounds like, “Preterism is false because it is not in the creeds.”

The question is therefore, if the enemies of true preterism are going to appeal to the creeds and church history to invalidate Covenant Eschatology, why was the argument of Emperor Charles and Yohann Eck, and the pope not valid? Let me frame their argument like this: Continue reading “What About The Creeds And Church History?”