Throwing Down The Gauntlet
An open letter to Rev. Andrew Sandlin

By Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks
1999

Introduction to :

1. Sandlin's Reviews Sproul's "Last Days According to Jesus"
2. Hibbard Reviews Sandlin's Review of Sproul's Book
3. Sandlin Responds to Hibbard

As a fully reformed and eschatologically secure preterist pastor, I now find that I can no longer keep publicly silent on this present issue involving the supposedly "orthodox" cursing's of members of the Chalcedon team of scholars as they without scriptural warrant, point their guns at individual members of the preterist community and then refuse to engage them in open biblical debate. I refer immediately to the most recent response of Rev. Sandlin to the esteemed Mr. Walt Hibbard, as it has been printed in the Preterist Archive website.

I will take Rev. Sandlin's objections to us point by point in his open letter to Mr. Hibbard...

Rev. Sandlin begins by saying, "I don't make it a habit to debate the Hymenaens and other heretics, and this response is not a signal to debate." First, I have been waiting for someone from the Full Preterist camp to correct Rev. Sandlin and others who agree with him, in his use of the term "Hymenaen", when describing those who believe in the consistent interpretation of the word of God. Full Preterists are NOT "Hymenaens."   The very use of this pejorative term against a group of biblical Christians reveals a deep misunderstanding of the text of 2 Tim. 2:17-18. First of all, consistent preterists are not Hymenaens because Hymenaeus taught and apparently believed that the "resurrection" of the saints had occurred BEFORE AD 70. I know of no Full Preterist that believes that Christ returned and initiated the Resurrection before AD 70.

Second, the very nature of the NT understanding of the resurrection is directly spoken to by the Apostle Paul in his letter here to Timothy.   Paul reports that Hymenaus and Philatus were teaching that "the resurrection was past, (and were thereby) overthrowing the faith of some." This meaning of the nature of the resurrection here is self evident on its face. If the resurrection that Paul taught was a physical-bodies-coming-out-of-the-ground, resurrection , then no ones faith would have been overthrown. All they would have to do is look around and note things, like graves having not come open, the bodies of departed saints still entombed, believers still alive and physically walking around. If the resurrection that Paul taught was a resurrection like this, then none would have had their faith overthrown. But that is precisely the point. The fact that the resurrection that was taught was a resurrection that occurred in the unseen realm was THE reason why the faith of some was being overthrown! To quote John Noe, "sometimes what is not said is as important as what is said."

Next, Rev. Sandlin claims that one is in a "precarious position by claiming one must follow the exegetical evidence where ever it may lead..." I couldn't believe I was reading this. So I read it, and re-read it again. This is one of the biggest no-brainers I have read yet when trying my best to detect the biblical argument that the Partial Preterist and others have against the Consistent Preterist viewpoint. He goes on, "Unconditioned exegesis is a naivete' shared only by nineteenth century liberals, twentieth century evangelicals, fighting fundamentalists, and now it seems, the flaming Hymenaens." Rev. Sandlin, you forgot to include in you list of naive people that believe that unconditional biblical exegesis is the bottom line for the holding of all doctrines as being true or not, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, and don't forget the writers of the NT, as well as the historical exegetes down through the centuries. What Rev. Sandlin is basically saying is that if a doctrine has been held by the majority of the church, and that doctrine is at some point found to be lacking in exegetical veracity and can be proven to be so through historical, grammatical and exegetical means, then that long held doctrine should be maintained even though it is less that biblically verifiable. As far as I can tell through reading this and previous articles by Rev. Sandlin, this is precisely what he is saying. This view of how to treat truth, is at the very least exegetically immature, and at worse, biblically reprehensible.

It is an example of what the Lord Jesus stated in response to the Pharisees of his day, and how they were willing to jettison the word of God for religious tradition: "Well did Isaiah prophecy of you hypocrites...in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Mk. 7: 6-7) At this point it would be easy to hear someone from outside of the Full Preterist camp say, "That's easy for you to say, after all you're just constructing a straw man, and then knocking it down." But you see, the folks of Sandlin's camp and others that hold a similar eschatological position REFUSE to prove anything from the scriptures that they are asserting. They refuse to go head to head with those of the Full Preterist camp, all the while hiding behind their lame and unbiblical position of refusing to debate us. I think they are afraid to even check our over all doctrine, because they will be found to have wrongly labeled as "heretics", those who are their true brothers in the faith. They are in the midst of violating Mtt. 7:1-2, as well as a host of other passages that tell who heretics are that we are legitimately to distance ourselves from. But they refuse to stand up in front of the body of Christ and make themselves accountable. Who is going to make these guys in the non-Full Preterist camp, stand up and be accountable for their unashamed cursing and shameful bashing of their brothers in Christ? No one in the Church general can tell which of us is correctly diving the scriptures and who is not, because the Chalcedonians will not make themselves accountable to the scriptures or the body of Christ by allowing their positions to be tested according to the scriptures. (1 Thess, 5: 21, 1 John 4:1) As a minister, I can tell you if they were in my presbytery, I would not hesitate to file charges against them for conduct unbecoming to their responsibility before the Lord as officers in the church.

For some reason, Sandlin and others like him seem to think that we Consistent Preterists are hanging our hats solely on the peg of Russell's work, "The Parousia." As if no one else in the history of the church has verified the Full Preterist view. May I suggest to him some time spent reading in J.N.D. Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines." Pp. 459-461& 464-466. Thomas F. Torrance's "The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church." Pp. 299-300. Or how about Kurt Aland's "A History of Christianity", (2 Vol.) Vol. 1 pp 87-102. I would also recommend some time spent in the Historical Archives of " The Preterist Archive" (www.preteristarchive.com), and read through the in context quotes from the well known fathers of the church up 'till and through the modern church writers and exegetes. Taken together, the unbiased student of scripture, who is primarily interested in letting the scriptures be the primary shaper of his view, will note that there is considerable evidence for the Full Preterist position of eschatology as being a historical valid view contained within the writings of the church. Russell is essentially, a "Johnny-come-lately" when it comes to this subject. And by the way, Rev. Sandlin, could you please give us the names and dates of the councils and synods held during the history of the last two thousand years of the church, that has seriously dealt with the subject of eschatology? There are none, are there? If one just looks at the doctrinal chapter headings of the Westminster Confession of Faith along with it's Larger and Shorter Catechism's, one will notice that the subject of the Second Coming of Christ is not even considered to be on the same level of importance like all the other subjects that are given a full treatment. The fact of the matter is is that the subject of eschatology had yet to, even in their day, been given serious consideration to. From the middle of the second century to the present, eschatology has been for the most part, living off of the works of "The Shepherd of Hermas," Justin Martyr, and 2 Clement. These men in the history of the church were some of the first to promote the futurist view of "postponement eschatology." Read some of the authors previously mentioned.

Your RCUS Anathama against Full Preterism is nothing more than a contrived scare tactic meant to push others in the reformed camp away from the conclusions that many in the reformed faith are coming to. If you had good scriptural exegesis to defend your views against Full Preterism, then you would have used them long before now (or perhaps you have, and things just keep getting worse for you), and we would not even be having these conversations. The fact that you had to stoop to the level of a formal "threat" verifies the weakness of your position eschatologically.

Finally, I would call for a strong examination of the soteriology of those who subscribe to Sandlin's view of denouncing us Consistent Preterists as heretics. He, along with others, seem to think that salvation from Hell and eternal damnation comes from holding to a futurist view of the Second Coming and all that goes along with it.   Chapter and verse please, Rev. Sandlin. The Bible is clear that salvation comes not through an eschatological view, but through faith alone in Christ alone. John. 3: 15-18, 5: 24, 6:37-40, Rom. 4: 1-4, 10:9-10, 1 John. 5:13, as well as ALL of the testimony of scripture, points to the FACT that salvation comes to the elect individual through trusting in Christ to be the substitutionary sacrifice for their sins, PERIOD!

I am offended, sir. Engage one of us publicly and finally, from the scriptures alone, or step down and let someone else who is willing to, do so.  Please let it be one who does not hide behind a series of flimsy explanations of the eternal word of God.

Soli Deo Gloria
Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

 

---

Comments

Mr. Birks:

The upcoming JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTION contains an exegetical refutation of Hymenaenism, as does a new book on Pantelism published by Canon Press, as well as one by Ken Gentry soon to be available.

I have answered your other concerns in other venues--some articles available on the Chalcedon web site.

Andrew Sandlin Executive Director http://www.chalcedon.edu

 

---

Comments

Mr. Sandlin: I appreciate you responding so quickly to me. Thank you for pointing out the articles in the website for me to consider. Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of the Journal that contains the article you have just penned. If you will bill me. I will pay upon receipt. Thank you. I read the other articles when they first came out and have reviewed them since then. I think as a responsible leaders in the body of Christ we owe it to be true to the Lord, scripture and one another to respond to those things which are placed before us which are of an apologetical and exegetical nature. Would you please consider at least participating in a panel discussion on the subject with possibly myself, perhaps Walt Hibbard, Ed Stevens, Todd Dennis? You could feel free to equally match the number of Full Preterists to others of your own choosing. Would you pray and consider the time and the place for just such a discussion? Thank you. We appreciate your time and desire to uphold the truth of Gods word.

In Christ, Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks

 

---

Date:

29 Aug 2003

Time:

05:48:01

Comments

I volunteer David Curtis for the debate! =)

---

Date: 13 Jun 2006
Time: 14:23:35

Comments:

Dr. Birks has stated his case quite well. Those who refuse to deal with the arguments of the Full Preterists need to uderstand that they're approaching the Catholic mistreatment of Luther. Maybe some of those dissenters from the Full Preterist position are too young to remember Dr. Walter Martin and his debates with cultists. He dealt with those who he considered in error from the biblical text. Full Preterists are giving answers to those liberals who believe the NT writers were mistaken about the 2nd Advent of our Lord. Can you who disagree with the Full Preterists, answer David Fredrick Strauss and Bertrand Russell's criticisms?