Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Posted on 01/18/2011 12:46:45 PM PST by topcat54
The Silent History of Dispensationalism[Thomas] Ice hopes to rebut preterism by writing on "The History of Preterism" to show that preterism really doesn't have one. The odd thing about End Times Controversy is that five of the seventeen chapters use historical arguments to defend dispensationalism over against preterism. As anyone familiar with dispensationalism knows, there is scant evidence of anything resembling dispensationalism prior to 1830.5 Certainly there is no evidence of dispensationalism among the early church fathers up until the time of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), which produced the Nicene Creed, a document that says absolutely nothing about dispensationalism6 or even premillennialism.7 In fact, as dispensationalist Patrick Alan Boyd concludes, even premillennialism is hard to find prior to Nicea.8 As a result of his study, Boyd admonishes his fellow dispensationalists "to be more familiar with, and competent in patristics,9 so as to avoid having to rely on second-hand evidence in patristic interpretation." He suggests that "it would seem wise for the modern system [of dispensational premillennialism] to abandon the claim that it is the historic faith of the church."10
Ice should have followed Boyd's counsel and the directives of dispensational icon Charles C. Ryrie before he decided to take on the historical argument against preterism. Knowing that dispensationalism has a recent history, and critics have used its novelty against the system, Ryrie responds:
The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong, unless, of course, it is unscriptural. . . . After all, the ultimate question is not, Is dispensationalism--or any other teaching--historic? but, Is it scriptural?11Agreeing with Ryrie on this point, we can ask, "After all, the ultimate question is not, Is preterism--or any other teaching--historic? but, Is it scriptural?" So even if it could be proved that no form of preterism can be found in first-century Christian documents, this in itself does not mean the Bible does not teach it. Ice knows of this argument, but like so much of The End Times Controversy, he conveniently leaves out evidence damaging to his position. William Cunningham's comments on the use of history to establish orthodoxy are instructive. Although written in the eighteenth century, the following reads as if Cunningham had Ice in mind:
Where there is not inspiration, there is no proper authority,--there should be no implicit submission, and there must be a constant appeal to some higher standard, if such a standard exist [sic]. The fathers, individually or collectively, were not inspired; they therefore possess no authority whatever; and their statements must be estimated and treated just as those of any other ordinary men. And when we hear strong statements about the absolute necessity of studying the fathers,--of the great assistance to be derived from them in interpreting Scripture, and in fixing our opinions,--and of the great responsibility incurred by running counter to their views, we always suspect that men who make them are either, unconsciously perhaps, ascribing to the fathers some degree of inspiration, and some measure of authority; or else are deceiving themselves by words or vague impressions, without looking intelligently and steadily at the actual realities of the case.12While history is important and interesting to study, it is not authoritative. Just because someone wrote something nearly 2000 years ago does not make him any more of a biblical authority than someone writing today. In fact, the case could be made that the average second-year seminary student has much more material available to him than any of the early church fathers ever dreamed of having and therefore is better equipped to evaluate doctrinal issues.Even proximity to the apostles is no guarantee of getting it right. There were well-intentioned people in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem who got things wrong and needed direct counsel to correct them (Acts 10; Gal. 2:11–14). A special council had to be called in order to clarify doctrinal issues (Acts 15). Even so, some still didn't get it (Gal. 1:6–10). Paul had to instruct the Thessalonian Christians on a matter of eschatology so they would not be "deceived" (2 Thess. 2:1–12). Peter writes that some of the things Paul wrote are "hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort" (2 Pet. 3:16). John warns his readers not to "believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1). Paul makes it clear that "even though we, or an angel from heaven should preach" a gospel contrary to what had been preached, that angel was to be "accursed" (Gal. 1:8).
Given what we know about the history of doctrinal issues in the infant church, it's surprising that Ice wants us to believe that the views of uninspired writers, of which we know almost nothing, writing decades after the death of most of the apostles, are to be taken as authoritative. What we do know is that the history of prophetic speculation has been a persistent embarrassment to the church.13 Many of the writers claimed as prophetic authorities believed that Jesus was coming back in their day! Ignatius writes around the year A.D. 100 that "the last times are come upon us,"14 words that echo those of the Apostle Paul when he writes that "the ends of the ages" had come upon him and the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 10:11). They both can’t be right. Given a choice, I’ll stick with Paul. Cyprian (c. 200–258) writes "that the day of affliction has begun to hang over our heads, and the end of the world and the time of the Antichrist . . . draw near, so that we must all stand prepared for the battle."15 This was a constant theme in Cyprian’s writings. These men, along with most of their contemporaries, believed that they were living in the last days, that the time of the end was near for them. They were wrong because they misapplied the time texts. LaHaye and Ice repeat their errors, and in doing so, demonstrate that they've learned little from history.
5. Ice confronted me after our debate at BIOLA (February 2002) about Francis X. Gumerlock's statement in his The Day and the Hour (2000), a book published by American Vision and edited by me, that "The Dolcinites held to a pre-tribulation rapture theory similar to that of modern dispensationalism" (Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites as proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an end note (the English translation is Gumerlock's): "Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the said three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into this world at the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, Dolcino himself, and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and Elijah are, and they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist; and then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend to earth to confront the Antichrist, then they would be killed by him; or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign again for many days. ‘Once Antichrist is truly dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true faith of Jesus Christ" (91–92).
6. "An intensive examination of the writings of pretribulational scholars reveals only one passage from the early fathers which is put forth as a possible example of explicit pretribulationalism." (William Everett Bell, "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology" [School of Education of New York University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1967], 27). Emphasis added.
7. Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction (Atlanta: American Vision, 1988), 99–101.
8. Alan Patrick Boyd, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr)," submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology (May 1977), 90–91. In a footnote, the author states: "Perhaps a word needs to be said about the eschatological position of the writer of this thesis. He is a dispensational premillennialist, and he does not consider this thesis to be a disproof of that system. He originally undertook the thesis to bolster the system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this (91, note 2)." Emphasis added.
9. Relating to the church fathers (pater) and/or their writings.
10. Boyd, 92. In a footnote on this same page, Boyd questions the historical accuracy of the research done on the patristic fathers by George N. H. Peters in his much referenced three-volume work, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, [1884] 1988). Boyd sides with the evaluation of the amillennialist Louis Berkhof when he writes that "it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine were a rather limited number." (Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1937) 1969], 262). Boyd demonstrates with his research that dispensational author John F. Walvoord was wrong when he wrote that "The early church was far from settled on details of eschatology though definitely premillennial." (Walvoord, The Rapture Question [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957], 137).
11. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Mood Press, 1995), 62.
12. William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church Since the Apostolic Age, 2 vols. (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1862] 1979), 1:175
13. Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917 (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991) and Francis X. Gumerlock, The Day and the Hour: Christianity's Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End of the World (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2000).
14. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter 11, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:54. Quoted in LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1950), 1:209.
15. The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 55.
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
You know, I feel sorry for you.
When I got saved and when God enlightened his Word to me, I was so happy and contented to be free of romish soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology.
It truly pains me to see brothers in Christ to be in a roman prison of preterist eschatology.
At least when Paul was physically in a Roman prison, he was spiritually free.
Thank you for reminding me to pray for the preterists in my own congregation.
.
.
.
.
I don’t think Preterists are Romish. Amillinialism is the eschatology of most catholics. For the record I think all systems have holes. Historic Amillianialism is adequate. The world will continue become more evil; then the second coming of Christ who will judge the quick and the dead. Simple enough for me.
Who writes your material? That’s a good one …
So, before you got saved you were wrapped around the axle of “romish eschatology,” perhaps invented by men. But now you’ve been set free to get wrapped around the axle of a tribulational rapturism eschatology invented by other men.
And that’s a good thing how?
From the frying pan into the fire, as they say.
Chet99 has his pitbulls.
topcat54 has his escatological insecurities to post.
FR is operating on all cylinders.
hey, tc, btw, if you aren’t leaving when Christ meets his saints in the clouds, you can use my Lexus. I won’t be needing it...
Except when quoting Josephus ... lol
“the axle of a tribulational rapturism eschatology invented by other men.”
The Scriptures are very clear.
Sasportas, Quix and others posted many of them last week.
It’s grievous to think that you consider “tribulational rapturism eschatology” to be a manmade system.
“Now, you have to realize that the Scripture really doesn’t mean what it says in that verse....”
An often-quote from my very own preterist pastor ....
.
.
.
.
Don’t pray to hard, they might starting preaching to you on how your eschatology is wrong, then you eventually won’t be able to take it anymore and then your head will explode from too much good information. < /s>
Just so that you know, Mr. DeMar, in the opening sentences of this article is taking a position that would make a cheapskate blush. If you want to be a preterist by all means don’t let little old me get in your way but DeMar, like many Covenant Theologians writing popular books (ex: Riddlebarger), is basically preaching to the choir, his very own personal choir.
As a general rule, the only theology I defend is my own, but Ice is a very capable theologian and doesn’t need any help finding the straight and narrow from DeMar with his childish augments.
So I ask the question, TC what exactly is the purpose of your thread? Do you think the cleaver Gary DeMar is making fools out of the dispensationalist crowd? Are you trying to impress us with your grasp of the various theological positions? Are you on a crusade to rid the world of pre-mil theology? Is your ministry the effort to prove that you are smarter than the writers of the Left Behind Series?
Of course the only question that really matters is have you confessed your sins and are trusting in the shed blood of Christ as the only way to salvation. But the Bible is clear as to what things will be like when Jesus returns, like for example it says something about the whole world seeing his return when it happens. Prove that Jesus actually returned in AD 70 and then you will have something to brag about.
Have a nice day...
Grevious and shocking.
I still shake my head often that anyone could believe such UNBiblical tripe as the REPLACEMENTARIANS, PRETERISTS et al.
Pharisees have been
TELLING GOD
what
GOD MEANT
for eons.
Christ wasn’t impressed with them, either.
So I ask the question, TC what exactly is the purpose of your thread? Do you think the cleaver Gary DeMar is making fools out of the dispensationalist crowd? Are you trying to impress us with your grasp of the various theological positions? Are you on a crusade to rid the world of pre-mil theology? Is your ministry the effort to prove that you are smarter than the writers of the Left Behind Series?
Of course the only question that really matters is have you confessed your sins and are trusting in the shed blood of Christ as the only way to salvation. But the Bible is clear as to what things will be like when Jesus returns, like for example it says something about the whole world seeing his return when it happens. Prove that Jesus actually returned in AD 70 and then you will have something to brag about.
You want to sign the papers now?
You're more than welcome to make substantive comments. [Note the absence of any caucus label.] Or is drive by more your style?
But the Bible is clear as to what things will be like when Jesus returns,
I'm sure you have the details all worked out.
Sounds like futurist hermeneutics. Literal when convenient.
“hey, tc, btw, if you aren’t leaving when Christ meets his saints in the clouds, you can use my Lexus. I won’t be needing it...
You want to sign the papers now?
....................................
Heck, once I’m gone, just move into my house and take
over everything!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.