Chalcedon (Brian Abshire & Andrew Sandlin)

Vine & Fig Tree (Kevin Craig)

KEVIN4VFT@aol.com [mailto:KEVIN4VFT@aol.com] writes:

> To say that someone is not a Christian because of their eschatology
> is, IMHO, dangerous.

That is NOT the issue Kevin, and you know it.

It is a matter of someone denying a cardinal doctrine of the Faith.

> In a message dated 2/14/99 9:40:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Brian
> Abshire <abshire@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> > The HP's deny one of the cardinal doctrines of that Faith.
Therefore
> > they are not brothers. Therefore we do not debate them, we
> > evangelize them.
>
> But "evangelize them" turns out in practice to mean "shun
> them and don't interact with them."

I gave up on spending hours swapping proof texts with JW's years ago
when they came to my door. They are heretics. They do not want the
truth, but only a platform to spread their pernicious errors. Time is
limited, the one commodity that can never be replaced. If any man
decides he would rather not waste his time debating those who twist
and distort the historic Faith, that is a perfectly legitimate
position. Some men may be called to do so (i.e., Walter Martin, etc.)
but it is not my calling.

> Ed Stevens has made a valuable point. If Sandlin ever hopes
> to stop the Full Prets, he has got to be willing to get down in the
> trenches and show them FROM CORRECTLY EXEGETED SCRIPTURE (not
creeds) > > where they are at variance. He has not done that. Christ
did not
> tell us to "Go into all the world and anathematize all the
unbelievers
> into submission." He said to "teach (or make disciples out of)
them." Paul
> reasoned and debated with unbelievers in the marketplaces of the
Greco-Roman
> world. That's why the Preterist movement is growing so fast. Most
of them are
> "teaching" people what Scripture says, instead of running around
spouting creeds and
> anathematizing anyone who won't worship them.

"Spouting Creeds?" "Worshipping them?" By your pejorative language
you reveal your own attitude towards the historic, received Faith.

> What the Church catholic needs in the area of eschatology is DEBATE,
> not excommunications.

If a member of your church (oh, sorry, you don't have a church do
you?). Well, if someone who pretends to be a Christian suddenly starts
endorsing Arianism, do you debate him? Or do you remove him from your
fellowship?

The issue of the Deity of Christ is settled. Those who deny it are
outside the Faith.

The bodily return of Christ, the final judgment, a literal
resurrection, etc., are all part of the historic Christian Faith. If
someone denies them, they are outside the Faith, pure and simple. No
debate, no argument, no compromises.

Once you agree with that point, that such a person is outside the
Faith, then we can talk. Just like talking with a Muslim BEGINS with
recognizing that we serve two different Gods.

>The creeds teach error.

That is an assumption not proven and one I will not grant for a
moment. As a man UNDER authority (i.e., lawfully submitted to a
Presbytery and appointed as an elder OVER a church) I took certain
oaths and solemn vows regarding my beliefs. I vowed that the Apostles'
Creed and the Westminster Standards were adequate and accurate
representations of truths contained in Scripture. While my vows do not
require me to say that either creed or confession is EXHAUSTIVE in
truth, I do believe they are adequate.

>Maybe the "hyper- preterists" teach error as well, but it is a matter
of
> inescapable fact that it is *the creeds*, in their affirmations of
> premillennialism, which are in hermeneutical error.
> Proof of this controversial assertion is easy, a piece of
> cake. Observe:

[SNIP]

> If the presbyterian church wants to say I'm not a Christian
> because I don't accept their interpretation of Matt 24:30 and Luke
21:27, too bad for
> the presbyterian church. I reject their entire premillennial
hermeneutical presupposition.
> Sola Scriptura!

You are in great company here. Charles Taze Russell did exactly the
same thing to the Presbyterian Church in the 19th century.

> Chalcedon should be sponsoring a debate, not decreeing
> excommunications.

Since the Chalcedon Foundation is NOT a church they cannot and do not
excommunicate anyone. However, Reformed Heritage IS a church, and we
will if this pernicious error shows up in any of our churches.

> > "He . . . sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
>
> Suppose I taught that Jesus was here with us. Have I denied the
creed?
> Abshire and Sandlin both believe He is *with us* "til the end
> of the world" (Matt 28:20). Is He with us, or is He at the right
hand of
> God? On the other hand, are we here, or have we been resurrected,
and are we now
> seated with Him in the heavenlies? (Eph 2:6)
> In other words, Scriptural truth is broader than the creed. It would
be wrong
> to condemn someone on the basis of the words of the creed because
> he believed something more than is taught in the Creeds
> (e.g., Eph 2:6).

The issue is NOT whether statements of the historic, orthodox Faith
are exhausitve, but whether they are true. Hence you pose a false
dichotomy here and demonstrate a basic inability to reason properly
from basic premises.

> Even more dangerous is condemning someone who refuses to believe
> something taught in the creed when that teaching has no Scriptural
> support:

> > From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. . .

> Sandlin and Abshire both believe the Scripture when it teaches that
> Jesus "came" in 70AD to judge Israel. But this was not physical.
> (Was it?) Non-bodily "comings" are therefore possible.
> Jesus clearly and undeniably "came" with His angels in AD 70.
> Is there a verse which says Jesus will "come" again in the future
> (a verse which is unmistakably NOT speaking about AD70)?
> Which verse proves that this yet-future second coming must be
> bodily, and *cannot* be like His coming in AD70?

For someone who is not a "Full Preterist" you certainly talk like one.
The difference between a heretic, and someone simply confused is the
issue of authority and submission. The heretic does not ask sincere
questions, wanting to understand how the answers fit into the orthodox
Faith, but instead wants to undermine and destroy the Faith. His mind
is already made up because he is blinded by his own arrogance and sin.

> How can we condemn to hell someone who asks these questions?
> (Especially when their questions are prompted by patent error
> in the creeds?)

You continue to harp on "patent errors in the Creeds." Since I
recognize no such errors your questions appear not to be sincere
attempts to be taught, but attacks against the integrity of the Faith.
Therefore, you are an enemy of the Faith.

> > I believe in the resurrection of the body [flesh]. . ."
(Apostles).

> I believe there was a resurrection of the body (Matt
> 27:52-53). I don't > spiritualize this verse. But I can't find the
Scripture which says
> the particular phenomenon experienced by these saints in "the >
last days"
> and by others like Lazarus is to be experienced by all believers,
and that
> the event spoken of by Sandlin and the creed did NOT take place in
70AD.

Again, you do not have a sincere question, but a theological agenda
you wish to pursue. Why should the historic, orthodox, church give you
a position from whence to spout your heresies?

> Question 87 of the Larger Catechism tells what we are to
> believe concerning the resurrection. The chief texts are 1 Cor 15,
1 Thes 4, and
> John 5:27-29. I think it possible that John 5, if not speaking of a
> spiritual resurrection (Eph 2:6) is speaking of the resurrection in
Matt 27. That means that
> a person can be said to be an unbeliever (i.e., "not a brother")
based
> on his interpretation of two admittedly mysterious texts. It
> should be noted that such a hermeneutical excommunication in the
past would
> have been based on many more texts, such as Matthew 24, but all
these
> other texts have been shown by preterist exegesis to have been
fulfilled in AD70,
> and Sandlin and Abshire admit this, because they too hold that these
> verses were fulfilled in AD70. These two texts (1 Cor 15, 1 Thes 4)
are
> the only plausible texts left in the non-preterist arsenal.
>
> And upon his agreement with a certain interpretation of these
verses,
> we will declare a person to be saved or unsaved, believer or
unbeliever,
> brother or outsider?

Whether or not a person agrees, affirms and accepts the historic,
orthodox Christian Faith. It appears you do not.

> The WHOLE CREED is "the Catholic Faith," not just the part about
> eschatology.

You cannot use a summary to deny one of the things summarized. You
have to believe the WHOLE creed or nothing. Deny just ONE element, and
you deny the whole. Hence deny the future second coming and you are,
by the words of your own mouth, condemned as a heretic.

> Regrettably, there has never been a similar council to resolve
> preterism vs. premillennialism.

That's because they were agreed. Jesus is coming again. Future tense.
If you don't believe that, you are a heretic. Pure and simple. No
debate, no discussion. Until you recognize and admit you are outside
the historic Christian Faith, then there is nothing more to be done.

> With all due respect to Sandlin and the Creeds, I must follow
> the Scriptures over both the Mormon church and the Presbyterian
church where
> either are in error.

Sure, Kevin, you do that. You are again in great company. Every
heretic since Marcion appeals to Scripture to justify their error.

>I would be hard-pressed to imagine a more frightening
> decision: anathematizing someone for rejecting a clearly-erroneous
> interpretation. It is only a little less frightening to pronounce
such
> heavy-handed judgment on someone for disagreeing with (or
questioning)
> the interpretation of passages which must be admitted to be quite
mysterious
> (cf. 1 Cor 15:51).

It is not over any particular interpretation of any particular
passage, but the conclusion reached that leads to heresy.

> The appropriate response is dialogue, not decrees.

We don't dialogue with heretics. We expose them, and reject them.
Titus 3:10

> The Westminster Standards teach error.
> Error MUST be debated. It MUST NOT be taught.

And so I reject you. As have other orthodox churches.

> *Abshire's claim is a complete non sequitur.* This kind of
fallacious
> reasoning is usually due to a spiritual malady.

Just one question. What orthodox church receives you as a member? Oh?
Really? You are not a member of an orthodox church?

Why, that certainly places things in perspective, does it not?

Brian A

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <abshire@ix.netcom.com>
Received: from rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (rly-yb01.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.1]) by air-yb05.mail.aol.com (v56.26) with SMTP; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:26:19 -0500
Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6])
    by rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
    with ESMTP id NAA12499 for <KEVIN4VFT@aol.com>;
    Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:26:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from smap@localhost)
by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
    id MAA21999; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:26:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mod-ca9-25.ix.netcom.com(207.92.167.217) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
    id rma021883; Mon Feb 15 12:25:38 1999
Reply-To: <abshire@ix.netcom.com>
From: "Rev. Brian M. Abshire" <abshire@ix.netcom.com>
To: <KEVIN4VFT@aol.com>
Subject: RE: OPEN LETTER TO LIGONIER MINISTRIES
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:26:56 -0800
Message-ID: <000301be5910$d79a1220$d9a75ccf@abshire01>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
    charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <194e704f.36c7e10b@aol.com>

Subj:    Re: OPEN LETTER TO LIGONIER MINISTRIES
Date:    2/15/99
To:    abshire@ix.netcom.com

Thanks for writing, Brian. I really do appreciate it. I'll be brief. No quibbling.
No debates on eschatology. My point concerns your pastoral ministry and
your reputation.

In a message dated 2/15/99 10:26:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, abshire@ix.netcom.com writes:

> I gave up on spending hours swapping proof texts with JW's years ago
> when they came to my door. They are heretics. They do not want the
> truth, but only a platform to spread their pernicious errors.

Some are that way, to be sure. Arguing with them is sinful.
But a few can be converted. We should test the waters, see if they're open.
A couple of minutes' time is outweighed by their eternal state.

I find preterists like Ed Stevens (and before his death, David Chilton)
to be sincere and open-minded. I think it's wrong to say they're not
Christians and should not even be given respectful answers.

> > That's why the Preterist movement is growing so fast. Most
> of them are
> > "teaching" people what Scripture says, instead of running around
> spouting creeds and
> > anathematizing anyone who won't worship them.
>
> "Spouting Creeds?" "Worshipping them?" By your pejorative language
> you reveal your own attitude towards the historic, received Faith.

Your pastoral judgment is mistaken on this point.
Ed's words reflect on his attitude toward an apologetic or disciplinary
technique (excommunicating based on fallible creeds, rather than infallible
Scripture) not a lack of respect for the "historic Faith." I have a great deal
of respect for the "historic Faith," and I hesitate to criticise the creeds
(more, it appears to me, than you hesitate to condemn me). But not all
that is historical is Scriptural.

> > What the Church catholic needs in the area of eschatology is DEBATE,
> > not excommunications.
>
> If a member of your church (oh, sorry, you don't have a church do
> you?). Well, if someone who pretends to be a Christian suddenly starts
> endorsing Arianism, do you debate him? Or do you remove him from your
> fellowship?

I'm sure you know this depends on the person. "Test the waters," as I said.
There are teachable Arians.

> The issue of the Deity of Christ is settled. Those who deny it are
> outside the Faith.

In our contentious, individualistic American culture, bombastic denials
often come from insecurity attempting to establish its own importance.
They may still be teachable.

Brian, you're supposed to be "The Pastor of the Reconstructionist Movement,"
remember? What about leaving the 99 and going after the lost sheep?
Sure, that'll take some time. . . .

Why are you and Sandlin so eager to excommunicate? Why is excommunication
and reprobation becoming a more pronounced theme than sacrificial outreach
and restoration? Will not the truth prevail?

KC:> >The creeds teach error.
>
BA:> That is an assumption not proven and one I will not grant for a
> moment.

I *did* prove it. It is not a mere assumption. The creeds teach that Matt 24 /
Luke 21 prophesy a future second coming. Chalcedon publications affirm
a contrary exegesis.

> As a man UNDER authority (i.e., lawfully submitted to a
> Presbytery and appointed as an elder OVER a church) I took certain
> oaths and solemn vows regarding my beliefs. I vowed that the Apostles'
> Creed and the Westminster Standards were adequate and accurate
> representations of truths contained in Scripture. While my vows do not
> require me to say that either creed or confession is EXHAUSTIVE in
> truth, I do believe they are adequate.

Are you saying that not all truth is infallibly taught in the creeds, but
all that is taught therein is infallibly taught?

The creeds teach that Matt 24 is speaking of a future second coming.
This is an exegetical error. It must not be taught or believed.

An oath to teach erroneous exegesis is not a lawful, binding oath.

> You are in great company here. Charles Taze Russell did exactly the
> same thing to the Presbyterian Church in the 19th century.

The creeds are correct on the doctrine of Christ.
The exegesis of Matt 24 and Luke 21 contained in the creeds is WRONG.
You're skipping over that point. Can a person be excommunicated for
saying the creeds are mistaken?

I think I have a legitmate point here. I think it will appear legitimate to
many people who have been schooled by Chalcedon publications.
You insult ("ChasTazeRussell") at the peril of your own ministry.

> You continue to harp on "patent errors in the Creeds." Since I
> recognize no such errors your questions appear not to be sincere
> attempts to be taught, but attacks against the integrity of the Faith.
> Therefore, you are an enemy of the Faith.

When you say you "recognize" no such errors, is this a statement of
authority, as in, "The gentleman has not been recognized by the Chair"?
Or need I merely point out that the Creeds have mis-exegeted Matt 24 and
Luke 21? Please return to my original letter and look at these texts.

Let me put it another way. On the one hand you teach that the first half
of Matt 24 does NOT teach a future second coming, but refers to AD70.
The creeds teach that this text is speaking of a future second coming.
The creeds are wrong. Your own words condemn them. Your students
will listen to your exegesis and then throw out the creeds -- possibily
all of the teachings of the creeds -- unless you admit to them that
the creeds are wrong on eschatology.

> KEVIN4VFT@aol.com [mailto:KEVIN4VFT@aol.com] writes:
>
> > To say that someone is not a Christian because of their eschatology
> > is, IMHO, dangerous.
>
> That is NOT the issue Kevin, and you know it.

Honestly, I don't know it.

> It is a matter of someone denying a cardinal doctrine of the Faith.

Yes, but the doctrine is eschatology. Declaring the doctrine "cardinal"
does not change the issue: excommunication based on eschatology.
I think it's dangerous. Especially if there are no properly-exegeted texts
undergirding that doctrine.

If you want a longer response to your letter, I'm posting it here:

http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/70/ligonier2.htm

Thanks for writing and thanks for listening.

Cordially in Christ,

Kevin Craig
http://members.aol.com/VF95Theses/paradigm.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7