Foreword
My appreciation
goes to Dan Harden, Theodore Kraft, Walt Hibbard, Parker Voll, Ron
Wilson, Jim Plummer, Tony Torregross, Joe Gautier, John Noe, Ken Davies,
Kelly Birks and several others who contributed material to this reply,
and for some brotherly partial preterist critics who reviewed the
manuscript and offered their poignant suggestions for "improvement." I
believe their input has made it more representative of the broader
Preterist movement. Those who supported my family during the development
of this reply are especially highly esteemed, including Garrett Brown,
Richard Swenson, Ron Wilson, Carl Fuchs, Carl Shields, Jim Plummer, Walt
Hibbard, Tony Torregrossa and many others. Thank you for your
partnership with us in this writing, publishing and distribution effort.
Thanks also to Gary
DeMar, founder and president of American Vision in Atlanta, speaker in
demand, and author of several excellent books, for asking the following
superb questions about what happens to a believer at physical death. His
good work to wake up America and challenge the next generation to take
back the moral and spiritual territory conceded by previous generations
is laudable. May his efforts be mightily blessed by God.
It is always
helpful to the cause of truth to ask a lot of questions about any
doctrine which is not clearly understood nor widely accepted. What
happens to the believer at death is the very foundation of our Christian
hope. If there is no life after physical death, then like Paul said,
"let us eat and drink, f6r tomorrow we die." (1st Cor. 15:32)
As some Christian scholars (e.g. Berkhof and Orr) have noted,
eschatology (the study of final things) is one of the areas of Biblical
studies which is least systematically developed (The History of
Christian Doctrines, Louis Berkhof, p. 259). We have barely begun to
examine the relevant texts and exegete their meaning. There is still
much confusion, and much need for further reform in the field of Bible
prophecy. The only desire Preterists have is to apply the "always
reforming" principle to the study of eschatology. DeMar has asked five
questions which should offer a great opportunity to do just that:
1.
What happens to the believer
after death?
2.
Where does he/she go?
3.
What happens to the body
that's buried and turns to dust?
4.
What kind of body does the
dead believer have if there is no future general resurrection?
5.
What does the Bible say
about these issues?
This reply to DeMar
assumes the reader is somewhat familiar with the Preterist view and
understands the difference between the Futurist, Partial Preterist and
Preterist positions. This author approaches these questions from a
consistently Preterist viewpoint, which believes that the Parousia
(Christ's return), the general resurrection, and the general judgment
are all consummated events. We also believe that the millennium is past
and the New Heavens and Earth (the eternal Kingdom of Christ) has
arrived and is eternally on-going and expanding. This presupposition
obviously and significantly affects our concepts regarding what happens
now to the elect believer at physical death, so DeMar's questions are
very appropriate. Gary's questions are boldfaced and numbered at the
beginning of each chapter, with our comments following.
Edward E. Stevens
Bradford, Pennsylvania
September, 1999
Introduction
What About The Creeds?
No appeal here will
be made to the great ecumenical creeds or confessions, even though they
might have something relevant to say about these things. This author
believes properly exegeted
Scripture alone is authoritative and sufficient to decide this issue.
This is the way the Bereans approached anything different than what they
had believed. We should do no differently. Will the creedalist affirm
that the Bereans were wrong in appealing to sola scriptura
for their decision about the orthodoxy of any doctrine? Why can't (and
shouldn't) we approach every doctrinal issue the same way they did? "To
the Law and the testimony…"
Creeds,
confessions, and catechisms must always be subordinate to the proper
exegesis of Scripture alone. We certainly use
historical-grammatical-contextual hermeneutical methods to determine the
meaning and intent of Scripture. If there is a conflict between
correctly interpreted Scripture and creedal summaries of our faith, we
must stand with Scripture. Creeds can be wrong since they embody more
than just Biblical material. They contain uninspired interpretations and
applications of Scripture, which must always be subject to some
suspicion of error. Only inspired Scripture is infallible and beyond
question. And only the Biblical content in the creeds is above
suspicion, error and correction.
We need to keep in
mind that
the creed writers merely lifted the futurist TIMING interpretation out
of the NT and bolted it into the creeds with the presupposition that it
was still future. The creeds are merely reflecting the NT
perspective which was futurist when it was written (i.e. before
AD 70). This means the creedal TIME statements are not necessarily
saying that the eschatological events are STILL future, but merely that
they were future when the New Testament was written. So, the TIMING of
the events is an "interpretation and application" of Scripture that
could be mistaken. It is not part of the Biblical material in the
creeds. This opens up the interpretative content in the creeds for
reinterpretation, correction and change once a mistake is uncovered or a
better interpretation comes along.
If any of the
"interpretations and applications" of the creeds and confessions are
found to be in error by further study of the Scriptures, our job is
simply to correct them and go on our way. Not everyone in the church
universal is comfortable doing that, and if we waited until they were,
we would never have reformed anything. So, we just have to do what they
did originally. They formulated creeds, then later modified them as
their understanding improved. As our understanding grows, we not only
can change the creeds, but we indeed must change them. I know this
statement strikes terror in the hearts of many of my brothers, but it is
the Reformed (and always reforming) thing to do. If some parts of the
church want to cling to faulty TIMING interpretations in tile creeds,
let them. That doesn't mean other Christians have to. If early
Christians had the right to formulate creeds in the first place and then
later change them multiple times, we certainly have the right to change
them or write new ones. Now that some TIMING problems in the creeds
regarding eschatology have surfaced, our duty is to correct the creeds
and go on into the future with more Biblically orthodox symbols. Future
generations will get the benefit of a clearer understanding of the
Faith.
To read more,
order at IPA
