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