Mike Bull’s Hapless Hermeneutic

  In this article, I’m wrapping up my expose of Mike Bull’s resurrection theory, in which he claims that the resurrection of believers already happened in A.D. 70, and that therefore the bride/body of Christ has already been glorified, changing the status of present-day believers from bride/body of Christ to “children” of Christ and His bride.  It will already have been inferred by those reading my last two posts, that Bull’s theory contains grave flaws, both exegetical and historical.  These flaws have been brought out in my last two posts.  But before launching into this third paper, let me say again that I am not attacking Mike.  If I am attacking anything, it is his Preterism.  And yet Mike is no average Preterist.  I actually agree with him on certain key issues which ultimately determine (depending on one’s interpretation) whether the resurrection mentioned by the apostles is past or future..  

Mike Bull’s Crooked Ecclesiology

  In this article I’m continuing my study of Michael Bull’s resurrection-theory as mentioned on page 377 of his book “Totus Christus.”  As mentioned in my last post, Mike believes that the first-century churches were the “bride” and “body” of Christ, and that in A.D. 70 all believers forming the bride/ body were either resurrected, if deceased, or raptured into heaven, if alive.  According to Mike Bull, present-day Christians cannot consider themselves members of the same church that existed prior to A.D. 70, because they are in reality “children” of Christ and His now-glorified bride, the antitypical Eve.  In the following brief paper, I hope to demonstrate some of the exegetical fallacies underpinning his theory, and give what I believe to be a correct interpretation of the prophetic texts..

Mike Bull’s Resurrection Fallacy

    I’ve recently been thumbing through Michael Bull’s 800-page book entitled “Totus Christus.”  Bull sent me a review copy last year for which I am highly grateful. I must mention, I had intended reviewing this book earlier.  However, due to other obligations I have not had a great deal of time to read it until now.  After what I’ve read so far, I feel that at the present juncture, Bull’s work is very a propos to the ongoing controversy regarding the resurrection of the dead.  For Bull is generally regarded as a believer whose views of eschatology are tenable, and in line with creedal orthodoxy.  And yet he maintains views remarkably similar to what we hear Hyper-Preterists endorsing.  This will be brought out as we proceed.. 

James B. Jordan: Friend Or Enemy Of The Faith?

  During the past couple months, I’ve had the dubious honor of coming into collision with the teachings of James B. Jordan, a sometimes-respected Reformed minister who has written extensively on the subject of eschatology.  One of Jordan’s disciples, an Australian guy named Mike Bull, recently wrote a series of articles in which he allegedy rebutted a piece I wrote last year.  Some of Bull’s theories, fanciful as they are, naturally piqued my curiosity as to what his mentor Mr. Jordan teaches regarding the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.  What I expected to find was at least some moderate respect for 2,000 years of Christian teaching.  My investigations, however, disclosed that Mr. Jordan evinces a marked contempt toward anyone who suggests that God has maintained a basic understanding of the truth within His community of saints.  Not only does Jordan reject such a tenet, but in a headlong spirit of private interpretation, he has virtually invented a new form of Christianity which nobody ever knew about until he came along. Because of Jordan’s radical overhaul of historic Christianity, one must ask, when the final analysis is made, whether he is really servicing the cause of orthodoxy, or that of Hyper-Preterism..