` AGAINST ERROR

Against Error

Keith A. Mathison

 

From: http://www.preterism.info/mathison.htm

In his book Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999), Keith Mathison says this:

…postmillennialism teaches that the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second Coming. (10); An essential doctrine of postmillennialism is that prior to the Second Coming, the messianic kingdom will grow until it has filled the whole earth. (191)

This is why Mathison cannot accept preterism: there is no room for his millennium which has already spanned more than 1,900 years; and there is no sign this bloated era is about to end anytime soon. Mathison despises the preterist position so much, he edited another book devoted to debunking it (When Shall These Things Be? [Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004]). However, he, evidently, became so confused with the task he ended up debunking postmillennialism instead. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul refers to the “coming of the Lord” and twice uses the phrase “we who are alive and remain” (1 Thess. 4:15, 17). Clearly, Paul thought he might be alive until the second coming. This is not something one would expect a postmillennialist to admit. However, amazingly, Mathison does. He writes,

“As far as Paul knew, Christ could have returned in his lifetime” (194).

What is Mathison thinking? Does he not recognize the implication? If Paul thought Jesus could have returned within his lifetime, there is no way he could have believed in the postmillennialism Mathison promotes. If Paul was a Mathison-style postmillennialist, he would not have expected the second coming for at least a thousand years! So, with one sentence, Mathison has obliterated postmillennialism.  A few pages later, he reiterates his previous position contradicting himself again:

When the word “thousand” is used in Scripture, it refers to a literal thousand or to an indefinite, but very large, number. (209)

It doesn’t take great insight to see that if Paul thought Jesus “could have returned within his lifetime,” then, obviously, he did not foresee the “very large number” of years required to fill “the whole earth” with the messianic kingdom; and if Paul didn’t know anything about an enormous millennium, it’s hard to believe that any of the other apostles did. In fact, we know they didn’t. See The Apostles Predicted a First-Century Return of Christ.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

Postmillennialism refutes itself

Postmillennialism teaches the following points:

(A) "…postmillennialism teaches that the 'thousand years' of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second Coming. (p. 10); An essential doctrine of postmillennialism is that prior to the Second Coming, the messianic kingdom will grow until it has filled the whole earth." (p. 191)

(B) “As far as Paul knew, Christ could have returned in his lifetime.” (p. 194)

(C) "When the word 'thousand' is used in Scripture, it refers to a literal thousand or to an indefinite, but very large, number." (p. 209)
[Cited from Keith A. Mathison's Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999]

Point (A) is what distinguishes Postmillennialism & Amillennialism from the other end-time views: it is what gives "Postmillennialism"' its name.
Point (B) is accepted by virtually all Bible interpreters based upon 1 Thess 4:17 and like passages, LINK.
Point (C) is accepted by all but the few "Full" Preterists.

Clearly, however:
(A) and (B) oppose (C): If Paul thought the Millennium preceded the Second Coming (A) that could have occurred within his lifetime (B), there is no way he would believe the Millennium to last 1000 or more years (C).

(B) and (C) oppose (A): If Paul thought Jesus could have returned within his lifetime (B) and that the Millennium is 1000 or more years (C), there is no way he would have believed the Millennium precedes the Second Coming (A).

(C) and (A) oppose (B): If Paul thought a 1000+ year (C) Millennium preceded the Second Coming (A), there is no way he would have expected Jesus to return within his lifetime (B).

Simply put, (A), (B) and (C) cannot each be true (unless the Apostle Paul be discredited, which is unthinkable, or that he thought his natural lifetime might extend over 1000 years, which is unsupported by Scripture). The accepted truth of (B) and (C) reject the conjecture of (A). Postmillennialism & Amillennialism are self-refuting. Read more ...

**
"Full" Preterists hold (A) and (B) by denying (C), claiming the "1000 years" was 40 years or less.
Idealists hold (A) and (B) by denying (C), claiming the "1000 years" is a mystic number without historical import.
Premillennial Dispensationalists deny (A), hold on to (C) but downplay (B), claiming "coming soon" can mean anywhere between zero to 2000 years or beyond.
70-1070AD Millennium denies (A) while holding (B) and (C), claiming "soon" means "soon" and "1000 years" means "1000 years" and Saints' reign with Christ begins at their Resurrection at Christ's Return, 1 Thess 4:17 = Rev 20:4.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

Unintended Error vs. Intentional Deception

Saint Augustine differentiates between two kinds of doctrinal error:

  1. Unintended inaccuracy that the Bible teacher shares in his earnest effort to promote love for God and neighbor. It has no malicious intent.

  2. Intentional deception that the Bible teacher designs to take advantage of believers, to drive them away from obedience to Christ or to sow discord among them.

Saint Augustine differentiates between mistaken teachers (type 1) and malicious deceivers (type 2). I would add to that lesson that it is wrong for one to assume himself immune from unwittingly teaching errors (type 1), all the more so if he condemns as type 2 deceivers those who are just trying to bless people with their Bible studies while making unwitting mistakes, (type 1). Jesus said, "You will know them by their fruits," LINK. (Note: Jesus did not say, "You will know them by their creeds" or "by their super-apostle commentaries" or "by their denominational sign" or "by their theological jargon, extra-biblical vocabulary" or "by their name-dropping of famous Christians" or "by their friends," etc.).

From: Saint Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine, pages 845-847

Chapter 36.—That Interpretation of Scripture Which Builds Us Up in Love is Not Perniciously Deceptive Nor Mendacious, Even Though It Be Faulty. The Interpreter, However, Should Be Corrected.
40. Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception. For there is involved in deception the intention to say what is false; and we find plenty of people who intend to deceive, but nobody who wishes to be deceived. Since, then, the man who knows practises deceit, and the ignorant man is practised upon, it is quite clear that in any particular case the man who is deceived is a better man than he who deceives, seeing that it is better to suffer than to commit injustice. Now every man who lies commits an injustice; and if any man thinks that a lie is ever useful, he must think that injustice is sometimes useful. For no liar keeps faith in the matter about which he lies. He wishes, of course, that the man to whom he lies should place confidence in him; and yet he betrays his confidence by lying to him. Now every man who breaks faith is unjust. Either, then, injustice is sometimes useful (which is impossible), or a lie is never useful.

41. Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether.

Chapter 37.—Dangers of Mistaken Interpretation.
For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. “For we walk by faith, not by sight, 2 Cor 5:7. Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

Questioning "Full" Preterism, Covenant Eschatology

Question: Does not the declaration by some Full Preterists that the work of the Cross was not fully in effect until 40 years later have profound effects?

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

What Creeds have to say about Creeds versus Scripture

These excerpts perfectly express the view of this website concerning this subject:

The Belgic Confession

Article 5: The Authority of Scripture

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.
And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.
For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture

We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says, (Gal 1:8)-- ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God, (Deut 12:32 Rev 22:18-19), this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God," (1 John 4:1), and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house," (2 John 10).

The Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER I.

Of the holy Scripture.

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased....

IV. 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 is the Word of God.

IX. 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 may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. 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.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

"The Dangers of Private Interpretation"

"We must fight vigorously against people who read the Bible on their own. If we allow people to interpret the text without correct guidance they may come to all sorts of strange conclusions such as; justification by faith, the Lord’s Supper as a memorial rather than the actual blood and body of Christ, or even that we are now in that kingdom Christ and the disciples constantly spoke of as coming soon."

Obviously the opening paragraph was written to make a point that most of the “doctrines” that non-Roman Catholic Christians hold dear are the very teachings that were arrived at via so-called private interpretation.
We are often told we must have “the Church” tell us what the Bible says – well at least that is what the Roman Catholic Church has said in centuries past. But along came such men as John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, and Ulrich Zwingli – by what authority did these men presume to interpret the Bible?
Now, an ecclesiastical tyrant or Inquisition may take delight in this situation, because they could say it is all this private interpretation that has led to error. For certainly there is the warning in the Bible:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
KJV
But the text is wrested from its context to be used as a squelch against any person that supposes they can understand anything of the Bible outside Church leadership or denomination headquarters, or indeed outside the guidance of some sort of church official such as priest or pastor. If the entire text of 2 Peter 1 is read it is clear that Peter is communicating that the ancient prophets did not invent their prophecies from their personal interpretation of the times, but rather, the prophecies came forth as the Holy Spirit moved them, (the ancient prophets themselves often not understanding the meaning their own prophecies). So, there is no injunction here against reading the Scriptures on your own and coming to a conclusion without the aid of some intermediary, but rather, it was simply an affirmation of the Divine Source of the ancient prophecies upon which Jesus, Peter and the Apostles based the New Testament. See how the great language scholars of our day render this passage:
2 Peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
NIV
Further, we see Christ Himself asking a person what the person's “interpretation” of a passage was.
Luke 10:26
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
All through the gospels Jesus appeals to peoples' understanding or knowledge of the Scriptures. (See the Bible “have you not read…?” and “have you never read…?”)
So when we look at the Bible (that Jesus expected people to know the Scriptures), and history (how most theological truths have been expounded by individuals) we must conclude that so-called private interpretation is not wrong but rather expected so as to come to a right conclusion. I mean, how many interpretations can there be?
It seems we chiefly get convoluted interpretations by one of several avenues:
  1. The person doesn’t know enough of the Scriptures to see the overall picture.
  2. The person wrestles the text into something its not trying to say, (such as the aforementioned abuse of 2 Peter 1:20-21).
  3. The person poorly comprehends the translation he is using, (old English).
The first error often happens when a person is too quick to endorse some interpretation. The second error happens when a person is trying so hard to force an interpretation (and often occurs with people who claim to have a leg up on interpretative skills such as knowledge of Hebrew or Greek). The third when he neglects the details of the actual text of Scripture. All three have this in common: the person neglects attention to detail and trusts too much in his initial observation. "But in the multitude of counselors there is safety," Proverbs 11:14.
Now, having said all of this do people ever come to wrong conclusions or interpretations? Yes, indeed, they do. Then how shall we measure what is the proper interpretation of Scripture? We could take a few approaches:
1. Majority Rules? Does it agree with the current majority opinion?
By majority do we mean the current majority of Christian teachers? The majority often changes in time. For instance, Calvinists were once in the majority. I would hope that no one thinks this measurement by itself qualifies an interpretation to be correct or incorrect.
2. Orthodox vs. Unorthodox? Does it agree with traditional ideas of orthodoxy, "historic Christianity," and various creeds?
The term “orthodox” is thrown around a lot. This is not much different than interpretation by majority except that orthodoxy either appeals to a certain time period of interpretation or tries to find a continuous thread of supporting interpretation throughout history. This continuous thread often needs to be pieced together. Take for example baptism by immersion (dunking). There is hardly any continuous example of this method of baptism in Christian history yet the majority of congregations today teach it as if it’s fully orthodox. (I’m not trying to build the case for sprinkling, but merely trying to point out how things are often pieced together)
So, the “orthodoxy” test is not always reliable either.
3. Direct Revelation? Does it claim to be an anointed, prophetic direct revelation from God Himself?
Direct revelation is also offered as an option. That is, people will claim “God told them this or that” or showed them this or that. Certainly God can and has operated in this manner but such a method would negate the need for a completed Bible, not to mention there would be no way to refute or confirm a person’s private revelation. And what are we to do when one person’s private revelation contradicts another person’s private revelation?
CONCLUSION
It seems like we’ve done nothing but build an argument for anarchy – but have we really? We must come back again to the Scriptures. All of us are looking at the same text but yet some people are coming to different conclusions. Why is that? It is obvious that we all come to the Scriptures with different biases and presuppositions. What must be done is to remove as much of that from ourselves as possible and let the Scriptures interpret themselves, in a common and, yes, logical manner. This ability is granted by God as we obey the teachings that are clearly understood and earnestly study the Scriptures, ever renewing our minds thereby. The Bible isn’t this mystical codebook that can only be cracked with some secret mathematical formula. Nor is it some inscrutable book that only can be understood by experts within the inner circle, ever quoting ancient extra-biblical traditions. Indeed, before Christ came the Scriptures contained many mysterious things, but now that Christ has come and the Holy Spirit granted to those who obey Him, the mysteries are opened to Christians willing to read unhindered by their biases and presuppositions. In this way, we will eventually all be the “majority” and we will all be the “traditionally orthodox”, as we all grow up into a full knowledge of the Son of God, for the Scriptures are clear if we allow them to speak for themselves. "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your mind," (not just the part that likes to quote other people). Study for God's approval.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

ERROR: the legend of "Historic Christianity"

Just as some would pursue the quest for "the historical Jesus" and come up with something different from the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament, there are others who pursue the quixotic quest for "the historical Christianity" even if it arrives at something different from the Gospel of the New Testament. In countering this error, I hold that Scripture Alone can give us the definitive, God-authorized, 100% trustworthy description of the real Jesus and His Gospel message. Christ and Christianity are defined authoritatively by the Bible, undistorted by extra-biblical embellishments.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR