Truth or Dare? Responses to Roderick Edwards

My purpose in writing the article, March of the “Don’t” Believers was certainly not intended to be offensive to anyone–especially Roderick Edwards.  The heartfelt purpose was to create an awareness of the seriousness of hastily taking a stand against the teaching of Accomplished Salvation (Preterism).  Roderick Edwards and I had corresponded privately for about a week regarding some more private and confidential matters–something I appreciated very much, and the content of which I intend to keep between the two of us as was agreed.

In this article I will take the responses of Roderick, many of which, began with the phrase, “How Dare you…” and attempt to provide a proper response as I had indicated in the comments section of the previous article.  Roderick wrote:

“Larry, what a dramatic shift of tone from our recent private emails. How dare you use verses about “being blown and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in craftiness to the deceit of error” (Eph. 4:14), also described as, “always learning, but never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7) when this more describes the state of Full Preterism than those Christians who solidly side with the historic Christian Church. It is the Full Preterists (FP) who have been blowing around with every crazy “theory-ology” under the sun, with the latest being Tim Martin’s “covenant creation” garbage.”

Roderick objects to the usage of certain passages in describing the condition of those defecting from the preterist understanding of eschatology (Eph. 4:14; II Tim. 3:7).  The Scriptures present, conceptually, the journey of believers through various stages of development, from childhood to maturity (See Heb. 5:12-6:3; Col. 1:28; II Pet. 3:18) even as the church during the transition period was growing from spiritual childhood toward maturity and fullness (Eph. 4:12-16; I Cor. 13:9-13 et al).  Throughout the New Testament any person who turned aside from doctrinal truth were depicted as “a double-souled man, unstable in all his ways” (Jas 1:8).  Barnes makes this observation regarding such a person: 

“It means, properly, one who has two souls; then one who is wavering or inconstant. It is applicable to a man who has no settled principles; who is controlled by passion; who is influenced by popular feeling; who is now [or was previously] inclined to one opinion or course of conduct, and now to another.” 

Does this not describe those who once received the message of Accomplished Salvation with a sense of joy and confidence but who now oppose preterism with every fiber of their being?There is a difference between someone who continues to build on the foundation of faith and whose knowledge of the word of God continues to grow and mature, and one who takes a doctrinal position, teaches that doctrinal position, defends that doctrinal position, but who suddenly stops dead in his tracks and says, “oops, my bad–I was wrong about the whole thing.”  Roderick Edwards documents the progression of his journey of faith in the recounting of his testimony, “From Vague to Vagabond to Victory:  A Testimony of a Christian” in March of 2007–less than a year ago.  It is a testimony that inspires all of us who traveled down the same pathway in our understanding and acceptence of the truth.

Suddenly Roderick Edwards has become the “poster child” in defense of the “historic church” and later takes his stand alongside of those whose allegiance lies within the acceptance of creeds and confessions over that which is revealed in the written word of God.  This is not to imply, of course, that creeds and confessions contain no truth whatsoever–only that human documents cannot and should not replace that which is revealed in the Scriptures.  The two-part series “Are Creedal Beliefs Authoritative” (posted by Roderick at his website, but authored by someone other than himself), makes the following statement:

The Creedal-ist however will argue that the Creeds bear the same weight as do the Holy Scriptures, because they state that their belief in them is derived from the Scriptures. Of this I must argue that while the statements within the creeds are certainly from scripture, the interpretation of scripture is quite different where it comes to the second coming, judgment and resurrection. … t is the institutional temples of men and their councils, popes, and etc. that have created this mess in the first place and thus caused these great divisions, pitting Christian against Christian, and denomination against denomination, until the body of Christ is viewed with scorn and ridicule by outsiders looking in. Furthermore, it is Christ and His Apostles that viewed all believers who hold to the truth of [their] Gospel (good news), to be the Kingdom of Priests, and not these over zealous, deceptive, manipulative, fraudulent, thieving, self reinstated Pharisees that control what we know as the “church” clergy, no matter what their denomination/non-denominational affiliations may be.

Although Roderick Edwards did not author the above comments, in another article, “Protestant Orthodoxy” (May 29, 2007), he expresses a similar sentiment:

Protestant…rather Christian Orthodoxy comes by way of those without agendas EXCEPT the agenda to let Scripture interpret Scripture.  When Christians approach the text without a lens of confessions or creeds, or private interpretation, or one-man elitism, or consensus, or disdain for “dogmatism” – then & only then will they reach “orthodoxy”…biblical orthodoxy.  I am confident that in this way, more & more Christians will become “likeminded”, with the mind of Christ. (Philippians 2:5)–[emphasis R.E.]

My simple question is related to the UNpreterist website is simply this:  “Where is the real Roderick Edwards and what have you done with him?”  The contrast between the Roderick of old and that of the “new and improved” (?) version is striking!  It smacks of a modern-day science fiction drama, Invasion of the Roderick Snatchers–A Case in Alien Obduction.  In his defense of ”Consistent Cessationism” Roderick Edwards objects to the acceptence of a positon based upon its roots within the “historic church“ (in the traditional sense):  “The objectors insert themselves into the equation 1600 years after Christ (in the Reformation) and then get upset that WE are not upholding the continuity of the Church???????”  While it is not our aim to examine every postion taken by Roderick during the past 15-years it is significant that his decision to depart from preterism (for whatever reason) is both dramatic and recent–and seemingly in conflict with the many strong arguments he made in support of the teaching during all those years–[NOTE:  It will not surprise me to see most of his website (www.thekingdomcome.com)  disappear within a short period of time because of the open inconsistency that has become apparent to everyone, much in the same vein that Todd Dennis has stripped his supposedly "unbaised" approach to preterism to the very core, rendering his productive use of the material almost impossible to navigate (www.thepreteristarchive.com).  His disclaimer betrays a sense of open-dishonesty about any future intention of an honest and fair presentation of anything related to preterism--LS]

Would Roderick Edwards also count his views concerning “Consistent Consummationism” an example of the “crazy ‘theory-ology’” he once supported and defended?  Nobody is questioning the fact that some preterists have taken extreme or hyper positions on a variety of subjects.  It is often the manifestion of extremes through which the balanced message of truth is made manifest.  The counsel of Jehovah to his servant Joshua of old regarding the need to avoid going in all directions rings just as true as a warning for believers even now:  “…Do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may act wisely where ever you go” (Josh. 1:7, 8).  Christians are those whose desire it is, “not to think above what has been written” (I Cor. 4:6)–revealed within the pages of God’s inspired word (Deut. 12:32; I Thess. 5:21). 

Roderick Edwards mentions specifically the Tim Martin “covenant creation garbage” as a specific example to his present objection to preterism.  It is beyond the scope of this article to either review or address the “covenant creation” concept as presented by Tim Martin in his expansive book.  However, one doctrinal conception does not a movement make.  Is the acceptance or rejection of the “covenant creation” concept enough to draw lines of fellowship, or worse, to reject preterism completely?

The next installment in this investigation will address the “How Dare you…” related to the concept of “private interpretation” as it pertains to the Scriptures in relationship to that which constitutes the foundational elements of historic Christianity.

Larry Siegle

March of the “Don’t” Believers

Within a short period of time there has arisen a host of “anti”-preterists whose stated purpose and mission is to “destroy”anything and everything related to the preterist viewpoint.  Thus websites, blogs and other viable means of communications has been launched with a view toward “tearing down”what they see as harmful and destructive within the preterist movement.

This defection from preterist teaching comes as no surprise since there have always been those “being blown and carried about by every wind of doctrine, in the sleight of men, in craftiness to the deceit of error” (Eph. 4:14), also described as, “always learning, but never being able to come to a full knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7).  These belong to the class who stood each day near the Areogapus, “living there, [and]  have leisure for nothing else than to say and to hear newer things” (Acts 17:21).  These newly “enlightened” don’t believers who stood on the firm foundation of truth have now stepped forward to recant and renounce their former involvement in this “sinful” movement of preterism.  Like roaches who scurry away to find shelter in the darkness these “un”preterists now seek some other more viable interpretive system that bends toward their personal feelings and less toward the inspired testimony of Scripture.

Thus far, what has been revealed has been “weighed in the balances and found lacking” (Dan. 5:27), long on rhetoric and short of evidence supported from the biblical text.  Some have chosen to hide behind the historical creeds and confessions to the exclusion of anything evidence to the contrary presented from Scriptures.  From Sola Scriptura to Sola Creedo is a leap from the light into the darkness.  Such attitudes smack of the same mentality that created the “Dark Ages” and certainly not that which was demonstrated by the Reformers by which millions marched out of the shadows of tyranny and into the light of freedom.

Therefore, we must wait and see whether or not there is any substance to their claims.  We must wait for some systematic theology that presents a more biblical model and consistent approach to eschatology than preterism.  Thus far all we have been hearing is what they don’t believe instead of Scriptural evidence of what they do believe.  It is not enough to renounce the past if there is no foundational truth with which to replace it.  One can say they renounce their belief that the world is round and yet offer no evidence to the contrary and expect everyone else to fall in line just because they “said so.”  The admonition of the apostle Paul stands, “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good”(I Thess. 5:21).  Anything less from them is just “whistling in the dark.”

The challenge is set before them.  Prove your case and all who are in error will lay down their swords and follow.  They must, to say it bluntly:  “Put up, or shut up.”  What will these same ones do six months from now when they still do not have a viable alternative?  What will they say when the realize the utter folly of accepting the necessity of a bodily reconstitution, in the form of a “physical” resurrection from the dead?  What will they do when they come to realize the implications of their stance, that one cannot “go back” into the nonsense of futurist eschatology without encountering unavoidable contradictions and inconsistencies than simply cannot be reconciled with what the Bible actually says.  Will they now join the “Left Behind” crowd march toward a Rapture?  Or, will they now take the Amillennial approach that cannot agree on when the book of Revelation was written, or how and when it was fulfilled.  In A.D. 70?  In A.D. 476?  Down through the historical pageantry of events that brings us down to the present day?  Or, perhaps the “Idealist” approach that strips the Bible from any connection to history whatsoever?  Apparently the Bible was just “dropped” from heaven with no reference to space and time, with a story to be taken and applied how ever the individual “idealist” wants to apply it.

When the dust settles, those who stand on the Scriptures will remain where we have always been–without the need to run from preterism toward anything else.  Respected men of faith such as Todd Dennis, Roderick Edwards, Brian Simmons and a host of others should simply pause and look into the innermost parts of their being and allow what they know to be rekindled.

Few of us who have believed in preterism for twenty or more years are happy with the present condition of the movement.  But, Christian maturity demands that we not lose sight of the truth simply because those around us have perverted certain concepts of faith to suit their own quest for power and recognition.  Those who have used the truth their own ends will certainly reap the consequences of the bad ”seed” that has been sown.  Those who have used their liberty for a license to live in the depths of debauchery and corruption will be held accountable for their actions.  God remains on the throne with genuine believers who look only into the face of Jesus as our King.  It is under His Lordship that we find our victory–never apart from it.

If these men have the sense of integrity that I am convinced they do, they will humble themselves under the mighty hand of God and admit that His word was true then and it is just as true now.  When that time comes none of us will cry “I told you so” but simply give them a hug in acceptance and say tenderly in the spirit of our Father ”welcome home, we missed you.”

“Ernestly tenderly Jesus is calling, Come home.”