Biblical Minimalism and "The History of Preterism" : The Silent History of Dispensationalism

Preterist Archive ^ | Gary DeMar

[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?¹¹

Agreeing with Ryrie on this point, we can ask, "After all, the ultimate question is not, Is preterism--or any other teaching--historic? but, Is it scriptural?" So even if it could be proved that no form of preterism can be found in first-century Christian documents, this in itself does not mean the Bible does not teach it. Ice knows of this argument, but like so much of The End Times Controversy, he conveniently leaves out evidence damaging to his position. William Cunningham's comments on the use of history to establish orthodoxy are instructive. Although written in the eighteenth century, the following reads as if Cunningham had Ice in mind:

Where there is not inspiration, there is no proper authority,--there should be no implicit submission, and there must be a constant appeal to some higher standard, if such a standard exist [sic]. The fathers, individually or collectively, were not inspired; they therefore possess no authority whatever; and their statements must be estimated and treated just as those of any other ordinary men. And when we hear strong statements about the absolute necessity of studying the fathers,--of the great assistance to be derived from them in interpreting Scripture, and in fixing our opinions,--and of the great responsibility incurred by running counter to their views, we always suspect that men who make them are either, unconsciously perhaps, ascribing to the fathers some degree of inspiration, and some measure of authority; or else are deceiving themselves by words or vague impressions, without looking intelligently and steadily at the actual realities of the case.¹²

While history is important and interesting to study, it is not authoritative. Just because someone wrote something nearly 2000 years ago does not make him any more of a biblical authority than someone writing today. In fact, the case could be made that the average second-year seminary student has much more material available to him than any of the early church fathers ever dreamed of having and therefore is better equipped to evaluate doctrinal issues.

Even proximity to the apostles is no guarantee of getting it right. There were well-intentioned people in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem who got things wrong and needed direct counsel to correct them (Acts 10; Gal. 2:11–14). A special council had to be called in order to clarify doctrinal issues (Acts 15). Even so, some still didn't get it (Gal. 1:6–10). Paul had to instruct the Thessalonian Christians on a matter of eschatology so they would not be "deceived" (2 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.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

An often-quote from my very own preterist pastor

The only way preterism "works" is by fallen men re-defining and denying Scripture.

You should probably find a new church. One that is true to the word of God and teaches the Bible as God wrote it, not as men wishes it was. If your pastor is a preterist, then he is teaching his congregation a man-created, false doctrine.

Run, don't walk, away from the place. Find a true, Bible-believing church were you won't be taught deception.

[fatboy]

A conversation with Mrs. fatboy.

Mrs. fatboy: Hi Tom, how's your leg doing? What did you do today?

fatboy: Leg is still in a lot of pain. I tried to debate with a preterist on the internet named tophat54.

Mrs. fatboy: oh, how did that go?

fatboy: as usual, the other side just repeats the same thing over and over again as if they are the only person in the world intelligent enough to understand such things.

Mrs. fatboy: Don't you have better things to do with your time?

fatboy: yes

Mrs. fatboy: why do you even care what some unknown person on the internet thinks or believes?

fatboy: I don't

[fishtank]

Excellent analysis. I was convinced of dispensstionalism because of theScriptural evidence. I had had my fill of reliance on the authority of the ECFs, due to many years in the rcc.

[The Theophilus]

I try to play, primarily, for one oberver[sic], and HIM ALONE.

I wish that you cheered for the LORD rather than the American Religion's "Him" (He who is rarely named). Alas, while your team has a significant following, they aren't going to the Super Bowl.

[topcat54]

A conversation with Mrs. fatboy.

I can see now that you sent way too much time thinking about this issue while medicated. Feel free to stop by when you're feeling better. Have a nice day.

[topcat54]

I had had my fill of reliance on the authority of the ECFs, due to many years in the rcc.

You obviously missed the OP, which was regarding the attempt by dispensationalists (Tommy Ice, et al) to find respectability by appealing to the ECF.

Glad to see you’re honest enough to admit dispensationalism has no roots in the Church prior to 1830. The idea dropped from nowhere. It’s like the secret rapture, only in reverse.

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

EXCEEDINGLY TRUE.

[Quix]

THANKS

for being

TERMINALLY

and

BIBLICALLY

WRONG

yet again.

[fatboy]

Thank you fishtank for your kind words.

fishtank said: I had had my fill of reliance on the authority of the ECFs, due to many years in the rcc.

I have an interest in church history, mainly centered around the development of doctrine and thus have many books on doctrine. I also have the 38 volume ECF published by hendrickson (and the same version on e-sword). I don't like reading long works off a computer screen so I don't use the electronic version much.

As you know even the ANF is 1000s of pages and not always an easy read. My question is, I know many in the RCC reference the ECFs and they are footnoted in the Catholic Catechism but do many catholics actually know the ECFs or do they just repeat what their catechism books say? I have 100s of dollars invested in my ECF collection but my reason for reading them is more for historical information and not for spiritual instruction. For that I look to the Bible. But I have long suspected that many (for example posters on catholicanswers.forum) talk about the ECFs without really knowing what they mean and so I wanted to get your opinion on this.

I give you a lot of credit for your path out ot the rcc and your use of the Bible. As far as threads like this one is concerned, I have long reached the point in my life where I don't feel the need to prove myself right or win the fight. I, like you, have settled on dispensationalism because it make the most sense in light of the Bible. I don't care if I'm the last dispy on the planet. It is too bad that posters like topcat54 feel the need to use the sledgehammer approach to debate. From time to time I get too involved in defending my views that I forget that the main thing is Christ and Him crucified. That is the main thing

Good day fishtank

[fishtank]

PS, I like your tagline.

[fishtank]

“You wrote: Your background is much the same as mine (I started in 1973), except just the opposite. After conversion I got heavy into the dispie things. Hal Lindsey and Co. was all the rage among my friends. Attended independent and charismatic/pentecostal churches where dispie-ism was officially taught. Bought Larry Norman records (“There’s no time to change your mind, the Son has come and you’ve been left behind”). After a few years of this I got dragged kicking and screaming into a Presbyterian church. Something about the teaching was different. They didn’t need charts to teach the Bible. They were not obsessed with “end times.” They taught the whole counsel of God. I was hooked. I have a room full of theology books of all stripes. “

I see now your background and history. I am sorry that you had a bad experience with one-dimensional end-timers (my term).

However, I had a rather different experience when I got saved. I was able to go to a great Bible-teaching church in Texas in a college town. It was pastored by excellent expositors from DTS. Because of the highly educated academic environment, it was the polar opposite of what you experienced, I think.

The Bible was taught cover to cover, verse by verse.

I’m sorry for your bad past experiences, and I apologize for making fun of your difficulties in this regard.

[fishtank]

I’m requesting the cartoon to be pulled by the mods.

[caww]

That doesn't change the fact that your trying to promote an agenda thinly disguised as a debate.

Exactly what's being done..time and again. Thank you for calling this out as you have.

[topcat54]

I see now your background and history. I am sorry that you had a bad experience with one-dimensional end-timers (my term).

I’m afraid my past dispie experience is most common. Although my experience is also that the more thoughtful dispies end up chucking the entire system and moving to something more faithful to the Word, like covenant theology. In fact, speaking personally, most if not all of my former dispensational friends from the ‘70s are no longer dispensational. I attribute that fact to a more careful study of God’s Word.

I’m sorry for your bad past experiences, and I apologize for making fun of your difficulties in this regard.

God was gracious in moving me away from systematic end-times error into a more faithful presentation of truth.

[topcat54]

Exactly what's being done..time and again. Thank you for calling this out as you have.

And you are shocked and surprised about this why? It’s not like it been a secret or anything.

[fishtank]

Actually, my dispensational views have strengthened since being in a CT church for quite a few years....

It’s a non-den church, so there’s a big portion of dispens’ there, but the elders are all staunch CTers/Amills.

We all strive to minister one to another.

However, at Bible studies, etc, it also turns out that end-time comments end up being the elephant in the room....

[topcat54]

It is too bad that posters like topcat54 feel the need to use the sledgehammer approach to debate.

With all due respect, the prospect of a debate pretty much ended when you made some questionable assertions about certain teaching and people that, when pointed out to you, caused you to suddenly take your marbles and go home. Not exactly how debates are supposed to go. You also insisted on asking some question of me that had nothing to do with the subject, but were more personal in nature. I gave them the amount of attention they deserved.

So your leaving is all fine by me.

A nice day to you, sir. Hope you’re feeling better. If you want to debate you know where to find me.

[topcat54]

Actually, my dispensational views have strengthened since being in a CT church for quite a few years....

I don’t find that to be typical. Generally folks in true CT churches do not “swim the Tiber” to dispensationalism. I’m not saying that folks might come out of some liberal church that gives lip service to CT but really isn’t, and spend some time in a dispie church because they actually use the Bible. You see this alot in the Calvary Chapel churches. But eventually the ones who spend time reading the Bible for themselves and have some interest in church history will migrate to a truly confessional CT church. That’s what I’ve seen in my almost 40 years experience as a Christian.

[fishtank]

I think I might be an exception to that, then.

I won’t say I’m necessarily exceptional, just an exception...

:-)

P.S. Just because someone is into covenant theology, doesn’t make them amillennial. John MacArthur is a prime example of that.

[topcat54]

P.S. Just because someone is into covenant theology, doesn’t make them amillennial. John MacArthur is a prime example of that.

John MacArthur? Covenantal? You’re joking, right? JM’s a dispensationalist, albeit a “leaky”one . “I have been accused through the years of being a leaky dispensationalist, and I suppose I am.”

Are you certain you understand covenant theology?