Home Preterist Study Contra-Hymen#230;an Resurrection Millennial Contra-Dispy Misc. Author Index Information What's New? Commentary The Preterist Blog TheologyWeb

An Orthodox Response to Hyper-Preterism
by Tyler Hicks

Plain Text/Printer friendly Version

Introduction: The orthodox paradigm is held collectively by all who give allegiance to the traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture as found in Christendomacute;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 Temple. Jesus was recalling to the Disciples minds the vision the Daniel had about the "son of man" coming before the thrown room of God to be vindicated, Jesus was thus speaking about these events 'apocalyptically' (i.e. he was investing historical events with their spiritual significance). In other words, Jesus was not thinking in Dispensationalists categories like the hyper-preterists would say, but was thinking in Jewish categories that was anything but anti-historical or anti-physical. This physical vindication of Christ not only leaves the door open for a physical return of Jesus but makes it so that we would expect Jesus to physically return. Given this list of options the orthodox interpreter is left to make a decision and she can use all the help she can get.

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 naiuml;ve 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 Battle of the Paradigms: Hyper-preterism did not just spontaneously come into existence. Someone in the nineteenth century did not just go to their backyard one day and say, "Wow, for the last nineteen hundred years, every Christian has misunderstood the edifice of Christian dogma because when I the read the Bible it clearly says to me that Christ returned in A.D. 70." The reason no one could just retreat to the backyard and invent hyper-preterism was because the paradigm in which it makes sense to read the Bible that way had to be invented first. Indeed, it is no accident that no one was a hyper-preterists before the nineteenth century for the paradigm only came into existence in the nineteenth century. During the nineteenth century, the American Church became the victim of a cultural mega-shift. During this period of time, congregations and their theologically trained Pastors were separated. Untrained Pastors emerged and the family unit disintegrated under the pressure of American industrialization. Left without the aid and support of a trained Pastors and family structures thousands of Christians would became the victims of a false movement to 'restore' the Church to its alleged former glory. Douglas Wilson described the American Restorationist's movement as follows, "In American [Restorationist] Christianity, it is commonplace to think that 'pure' Christianity disappeared from the globe with the death of the last apostle, not to reappear again until a revelation of some kind came to Hobart Jones on a cornfield in southeastern Nebraska. There are many versions of this faith, but the outlines are the same" (Wilson 257). Just as the ancient Gnostics only think that Jesus appeared to be human but was really only spiritual, American Restorationist 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. Out of the American Restorationist's movement emerged the Mormons, Dispensationalists, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventists and finally Hyper-preterism.

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 Cor. 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 Rome and it is time we follow the Reformers away from the Restorationist movement. Think about it, did God really want His will to be made known by grabbing a Bible and running to the backyard? Has the Holy Spirit really been misleading His Church for the last two-thousand years? If so, then we should stop arguing collectively about what the Bible says and start individually retreating to the backyard to find out what the Bible says. If however, God gave a Covenant document to a community that has its origin in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, then it makes sense to think that interpreting the Bible as a community is essential, which allows for communal debate. 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. To not use the Creeds would be to accuse the Holy Spirit of not being able to save the Church from heresy. A position that I suspect few would really be willing to swallow if they actually thought the matter through.

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 Wilson writes, "In short, the only eschatological position that the universal church has been able to agree on thus far is that hyper-preterism is wrong" (Wilson 259). The Restorationist's paradigm, which fathered Mormonism, Dispensationalism and hyper-preterism is also at odds with orthodox conclusions (although, like Dispensationalists, a Restorationist might accidentally end up one). There is not one good reason to prefer the hyper-preterists paradigm to the orthodox paradigm. However, many reasons can be advanced to show the orthodox paradigm should be preferred. Even Restorationist's rely on the trustworthiness of tradition when it comes to the question of which books are in the Cannon. The orthodox are just consistent and embrace the rest of tradition as well. Hyper-preterists and orthodox both use paradigms to guide their interpretation of Scripture. It is true that hyper-preterists can, with an overactive imagination, reinterpret any verse to fit its conceptual box (something it shares in common with Gnosticism and Arianism). It must be pointed out that hyper-preterists cannot show that the orthodox paradigm is irrational. Remember, so long as there is one verse that could logically be interpreted as still referring to a Second Coming then reason alone cannot decide which paradigm to choose. Given these facts, I can only conclude that there is not one rational reason to prefer hyper-preterism to orthodoxy, but there are plenty of reasons to continue to trust the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church, as revealed in the Creeds.

Samuel Frost's Response to "An Orthodox Response to Hyper-Preterism" with Tyler Hicks' Rejoinder

James Wolfe | April 8th, 2005 at 7:53 am

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 Tyler's response.

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 (Rome has spoken, the case is closed). This is directly over and against the Protestant maxim: Scriptura sacra locuta, res decisa est (Sacred Scripture has spoken, the matter is decided). Hicks, admittedly, has opted for the former. Yet, he still defends the Reformation based on the Ecumenical Creeds. Roma locuta, causa finite, by the way was the axiom formed from Augustine's Sermon 131. Pius XII Humani generic and the late John Paul II Ordinatio sacerdotalis (1994) affirmed the axiom. So does Hicks.

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 Rome hyper-creedalists for that is their expressed dogma (since Trent made explicit). Hyper-creedalists are those who want to be Reformed, yet who want the authority of the creeds to be utilized for power when it comes to deciding who is "orthodox" and who is "unorthodox." That is, they want sola Scriptura, but equally are committed to the fact that the creeds have not erred nor may err over and against the explicit admission in the WCF that they have and may err.

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 presuppositional 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 #150; 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 Rcopy;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 Durham. He affirms the creeds and must stay within them because that's part of his job as a Bishop! However, I have spoke with N.T. Wright and asked him why E.P. Sanders, Wright's mentor, agrees with the majority of orthodoxy that I Thes 4.16 and Mat 24 are the same events. Wright, of course, does not see these two passages of Scripture as speaking of the same event (over and against the majority from the second century onward that do). His answer: "they are not the same event." Well, I knew that he would say that. I wanted to know why he does not take them as such. He gave no answer other than not "wanting to align myself with preterists." Of course, N.T. Wright specifically denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ according to the WCF. Hicks has aligned himself with the so called "New Perspectivist" movement which has drawn fire from Evangelicals around the globe. I suppose when a paradigm shift takes place it is okay to break with tradition when exegesis calls for it, but don't dare break from one jot or tittle of the Ecumenical Creeds!

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 Rahmenerzauml;hlung 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 amp; 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 Rome and it is time we follow the Reformers away from the Restorationist movement." That's about as false as false can be. Luther stood on sola Scriptura not Scripture and the creeds. Luther stated that "reason and scripture" are the grounds on which he stands and that it would be objectionable for him to violate his individual conscience. The "conscience of the believer" became a doctrine of Lutheranism, yet Hicks, ever against this idea and in favor of authoritarian power states, "Think about it, did God really want His will to be made known by grabbing a Bible and running to the backyard? Has the Holy Spirit really been misleading His Church for the last two-thousand years? If so, then we should stop arguing collectively about what the Bible says and start individually retreating to the backyard to find out what the Bible says. If however, God gave a Covenant document to a community that has its origin in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, then it makes sense to think that interpreting the Bible as a community is essential, which allows for communal debate. 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. To not use the Creeds would be to accuse the Holy Spirit of not being able to save the Church from heresy."

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, Jordan, DeMar, Sutton, Campbell, Vanderwaal, Lightfoot, Owen and Brown that lead me to become a preterist. When I found J. Stuart Russell's book The Parousia, it cinched the deal. Secondly, I am a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and deliver papers there. I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and I am doing my Ph.D. work in Hebrew Lexicography at a Reformed seminary with whom I have a good standing. Hicks portrayal of all preterists being country bumpkins, radical individualists, uneducated and simpletons is simply ad hominem.

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 Carthage, and accept some Reformed confessions? How does he know that the Roman Catholic church has not been guided into all truth? The answer is simple. We learned as kids: for the Bible tells me so.

Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
President, Regnum Christi Ministries

Tyler | April 9th, 2005 at 8:08 am

*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 St. Augustine, would not have even known what the term 'Roman Catholic' meant and to characterize them as Roman Catholic is to project today's categories into the past. By portraying me as Roman Catholic, and by implication Martin Luther and John Calvin and every other subscriber of Christendom's Ecumenical Creeds as Roman Catholic, Frost has only poisoned the well against me. When one declares allegiance to the Creeds one is joining the ranks of the Reformers not leaving those ranks. Holding to the Creeds does not make you Roman Catholic it just makes you a Christian.

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 Westminster are really irrelevant to my article since I am in complete agreement with the Westminster's view of the relationship between synods and councils and Scripture. Remember my article is not comparing synods and councils to Scripture but comparing two interpretations of Scripture. Frost can chant all day long that "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" (Frost), I might even agree with Frost, if he means what Calvin meant, but we are not comparing Creeds with Scripture we are comparing alternative interpretations of Scripture and so Frost's point is lost in a wave of irrelevancy. To repeat, the issue is not should we use Creeds or Scripture as the highest authority, if that was the issue then I would use the Westminster myself to answer that question, but this is not the issue at all. The issue is which paradigm should we use to interpret Scripture? My reason for interpreting Scripture in light of the orthodox paradigm is not their origin in a synod but their history. God has directed history and hyper-preterists must trust God's direction of history for the table of contents in their Bibles and the orthodox are just willing to trust God for the rest of the direction he gave the Church in the Creeds. It should be obvious by now that I am not advocating Roman Catholicism but only the traditional interpretation of Scripture.

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 Tyler's response" (Frost). It is a good thing that Frost told me what my argument was because I guess I had misinterpreted my own argument. Personally, I thought that my argument stated that since both hyper-preterists and the orthodox employ different paradigms they inevitably will offer two logically coherent interpretations of Scripture that are mutually exclusive. Obviously, since formal logic only judges logical coherence it is impossible to use formal logic to determine which paradigm is the correct one to interpret Scripture with. Given this situation and assuming that Scripture has only one correct interpretation, it is incumbent upon us to decide whose paradigm reveals the true interpretation of Scripture. Saying that I just get my Creed or paradigm from the Bible is futile since everyone claims that so instead of arguing along those lines as Frost did I suggested that the Holy Spirit's guidance revealed in two thousand years of Church history is trustworthy and that in matters of eschatology the only consensus reached in Church history is that the hyper-preterists are wrong. Notice my argument for using the Creeds is not derived from their origin but from their history for to contradict all of Church history would be equivalent to calling the Holy Spirit a lair. Furthermore, I argued that any reason that the hyper-preterists could conjecture against the orthodox paradigm would be an equally strong argument against accepting the orthodox Cannon. After all, it was the orthodox paradigm that led the Church Fathers to recognize the sixty-six books of the Cannon. The situation that the hyper-preterists finds themselves in is intolerable because they cannot consistently object to the orthodox paradigm and trust in the traditional Cannon of Scripture. In an effort to relieve this unbearable tension I helpfully suggested that hyper-preterists use their Restorationist's paradigm to derive their own Bible. From this comparison it should be obvious that Frost fatally misrepresented the very heart of my argument and thus has undermined his whole critique of my article.

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)"(Wilson)

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.