An Exchange With 'Anonymous' Regarding My Statement That:
If Futurism is True, Then Preterism Is A Damnable Doctrine

ANONYMOUS: I want everyone to know that you were forced to concede a MAJOR point to Keith Mathison. In your article Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds, you originally said:

"If futurism is true, then [full] preterism is possibly a damnable doctrine." Emphasis added.

Keith Mathison caught you red-handed on that watered-down statement and you had to back pedal frantically and admit a humiliating and crushing defeat for all of preterdom! You were deeply humiliated into recanting, my friend. ;) I quote for all the world to see:

"Keith Mathison was correct on this point: If futurism is true, then preterism is definitely (not 'possibly,' as I said) a damnable doctrine."

Here is the web page for everyone to see your shame and nakedness:

Mathison ground you into oblivion! He brought you to the dust! He forced you to admit what no other preterist has the guts to admit: That this is NOT merely an "in-house" issue but one of two separate houses! By your own words, preterism and futurism are two radically separate faiths. By your own words, one is the truth and the other is "a damnable doctrine."

And guess what? Preterists are at variance with the message that the Church has preached throughout history. And since the historic message that the Church has preached throughout history ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be the damnable doctrine, guess where that irresistibly puts preterism? OUTSIDE the true faith, and in the garbage heap of damnable doctrines! By your own words, preterists are damned. Case closed! Thank you for thoroughly obliterating preterism for us, Dave! With enemies like you, who needs friends! LOL!!!!!

MY RESPONSE: Thank you for your thoughts. I'm glad that you've gotten so much enjoyment from my exchange with Keith Mathison. With your indulgence, I would like to clarify two points.

I think that you and Keith Mathison and I all agree that according to II Tim. 2:17,18, IF futurism is true and the Resurrection has not yet happened since the time that Paul wrote II Tim. 2:17,18, then preterism is indeed -- in the words of II Tim. 2:17,18 -- "ungodliness," "gangrene," a deviation from the Truth, and a Faith-overthrowing doctrine. If the Resurrection of II Tim. 2:17,18 has still not yet happened, then preterists are certainly heretics.

I think most or all preterists not only have the "guts" to admit this, but do admit it. This is not a new revelation among preterists.

More importantly though, you have missed or ignored the other half of the argument, which is the key point:

If preterism is true, then historic, traditional futurism is not a damnable doctrine. If preterism is true, then the historic, futurist Church still preaches the true Gospel. The error of the futurist Church is not that it has rejected the Gospel. Its error is that it has failed to connect all the right Bible verses to the Gospel that she truly, authoritatively and effectively preaches. As a result of its exegetical displacement, the Church has appended an extra-biblical scheme of future events onto her true Gospel-message. This is not a fatal mistake.

From the preterist perspective, traditional futurism is a significant error to be sure. It has ultimate implications which, by the grace of God, the Church soundly rejects, but futurism is by no means a damnable error.

If futurism is true, then we are two separate houses and two separate faiths -- but not because of any theological necessity, but only because of II Tim. 2:17,18 in a vacuum. This is the exegetical weakness of the case of those who anathematize all preterists. Thus Keith Mathison's position:

"I would obviously disagree with Mr. Green's assertion that the only way the debate will ever be resolved is through Scriptural exegesis and reasoning."

In contrast, if preterism is true, then we are one House and one Faith, even though futurism errs.

Back to The Preterist Cosmos Homepage