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.. 

My Case Against “Orthodox” Partial Preterism

    Everyone remembers the episode in Luke 11: 39-44, where our Lord denounced the Pharisees for their legalism, hypocrisy, and observance of the mere externals of religion. The lawyers sat there for awhile, listening to Christ’s criticisms as patiently as they could; until one of them determined to speak up.  Said he: “Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also” (Luke 11: 45).  But in response to his words, our Lord, instead of letting up, turned his verbal artillery upon the lawyers, including them in the number of those Israelites  —  mere descendants of Abraham, but not his children  —  who were culpable for their rejection of His Divine ministry to the nation.

  I was asked not long ago, why I don’t make a sharper distinction between heretical “Full” Preterism and orthodox “partial” Preterism.  After all, said my critic, this distinction needs to be pressed, so people do not think that Partial Preterism is in the same boat as Full or Hyper-Preterism.  This is because one is a heresy, whereas the other is a valid evangelical option.  So he reasoned.   Well, in all fairness, I do try to make a distinction between what I conceive to be heresy and orthodoxy.  However, I suppose the reader was right in that I don’t make an especial point of distinguishing between full and partial preterism in my articles, podcasts, and videos.  The reason is, quite simply, because I am not sure where that distinction can be drawn..

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..

Preterism Vs. The New Testament

    If you’ve ever spoken to a Preterist, you may have heard him/her discount Peter’s statement that “the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5: 8), by claiming that Paul said Satan would be crushed under the church’s feet “shortly” (Romans 16: 20). While to some the argument may sound like a good one, what the majority of folks don’t realize, is that Preterists are subtly making a “mental suggestion,” which requires Christians to reject both Peter and Paul as authoritative revelators of church-truth.

   Nothing could be more dangerous for the spiritual welfare of believers, than to embrace Preterist hermeneutics and argumentation as a valid evangelical option. For the result of buying into their system is nearly always the same: a repudiation of the direct authority of the New Testament. Although opinions regarding the applicability of “all Scripture” (2 Tim. 3: 16) to the household of faith differ, Christendom has historically accepted the New Testament canon as containing the final assessment of truth for the church age. It was the belief in an authoritative canon that fueled the Reformers’ doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” It is this presupposition on which evangelical Christians rely when they engage in personal witnessing, as well as pastoral and missionary work..