Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category

[Jeffrey Hoffman is the founder of BJUnity and regular contributor to the Do Right BJU Facebook page.] Giving Jeffrey Hoffman the benefit of a doubt that he may have been drunk when he posted the excerpt we are about to discuss*, I was quite surprised to see how Jeffrey seems to be totally oblivious to Islamic beliefs and practices.

On or about March 9, 2013, Jeffrey posted a cartoon of American’s claiming that not all Muslims are hateful, with a Muslim replying not all Christians are hateful. [1]. Jeffrey made it clear that he had Muslim friends that read his “wall” and that Islam should not be insulted. And then, Jeffrey stated this comment:

Do you know that Muslims are awaiting the second coming of JeSus? That Mohammed prophesied that Jesus would return?

This type of misunderstanding of the true nature of Islam has helped put American’s to sleep about not only Islam’s history but about their true intentions regarding “The Great Satan”, America.


Islam does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, nor do they believe that He was ever crucified. Islam argues that Allah ” is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.” (emphasis added). Surah 6:101. And in Surah 23:91 the Quran reads, “Say not that Allah begat a son”.

Islam believe that Jesus Christ (Isa) was no more than just a prophet like Moses. He was neither God nor the Son of God.


Islam awaits the “12th Imam”, or the Al-Mahdi. Some Muslims believe this Imam was born in 869 AD and never died but was hidden by Allah. Nevertheless, it is common among all sects of Islam that the Imam will be the final prophet that restores order and the rule of Allah upon the world.

This Imam must also be a descendant of Mohammed. Since Arabs come from the lineage of Hagar, it would be impossible for Jesus Christ to meet the criteria of becoming the 12th Imam.

In fact, if you look at the beliefs of Islam about the 12th Imam, it is strikingly similar to the rule of the antichrist in Revelation:

  • He will be a descendant of Muhammad and the son of Fatima
  • Will have a broad forehead and pointed nose
  • Will return just before the end of the world
  • His appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression (see Revelation 13:5 and Daniel 9:25-27)
  • Will escape from Madina to Mekkah, thousands will pledge allegiance to him
  • Will rule over the Arabs and the world for 7 years (see Daniel 9:27)
  • Will eradicate all tyranny and oppression bringing harmony and total peace (See Daniel 8:25)

Jesus Christ does not return as a prophet.

Jesus Christ returns as the Lord of lords and King of kings. Revelation 17:14. When Jesus Christ returns, He returns WITH His bride (Revelation 19:1-9) not another prophet.

When Jesus returns He establishes a JEWISH rule where He reigns from the throne of David from JERUSALEM, not Mecca  or Medina. Revelation 3:12, Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32, Acts 2:30.

Therefore it is clear that the Imam that Islam awaits is not the Jesus of the Bible.


While many attempt to portray Islam as a religion of peace, Holy Jihad is a fundamental foundation for ALL of Islam regardless of what sect it is.

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] until they pay Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Surah 9:29

Fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and polytheism, worshiping another god besides Allah] and the religion will be for Allah Alone. Surah 8:39.

Find and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war). Surah 9:5, Ali Translation.

Islam has demonstrated repeatedly that peace is not in their interest, but the total annihilation of Israel and the Americans.


Islam only gives the appearance of peace when it is expedient for them to do so. History has proven this to be a staunch fact (Oslo Accord, for example).

Islam employs what is known as the “Quraysh Method” which is based on the event where Muhammad permitted his friend, Amar Ben Yasser, to deny his allegiance to Allah when he was captured by the Quraysh tribe to avoid torture.

Since the Quraysh incident, lying is acceptable in Islam if it offers an advantage over ones enemy.

Saddam Hussein used this reasoning with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Mubarak visited Saddam in Baghdad the day before Iraq invaded Kuwaitt. Hussein promised Mubarak there would be no invasion of Iraq. Iraq invaded Kuwait while Mubarak was in transit to Cairo.

Know this that lying is not sin by itself, but if it brings harm to you it could be ugly. However, you can lie if that will keep you from evil or if it will result in prosperity. Abi Hamid Al Gahazali, Ehia Al-owlom Al-Den [A Revival of the Religious Books] (Cairo, Egypt: Maktabet al-Turas, 1971), pp 3, 137.

Thus any Muslim that attempts to give the appearance of friendliness is merely doing so because it is fundamental to their belief system that they need to “lay low” until they are in a position to “strike the enemy”. History has proven time and time again that ALL Islamic nations have taken advantage of opportunities to exploit Israel, America, and Christian interests by breaking treaties and capitalizing on any chance given (or taken) to further the cause of Islam toward total world domination.

Islam began as a religion created by the sword upon anyone that did not pledge allegiance to Mohammed and the Moon god of Arabia (Allah), and Islam intends to finish that way, too.

Foolish ignorance of the true nature of Islam and sympathy for the doctrines held by the sworn enemies of Israel, Christianity and the Americans has not only led to lopsided politics, but will ultimately lead to God cursing the American nation (Gen 12:3) and allowing Islam to continue it’s clandestine plots to destroy its enemies.

With Iran’s push to obtain nuclear weapons, it is not a question of IF they will use these weapons on America, but WHEN. One would think that September 11, 2001 would serve as a permanent reminder of that fact, and those who believe that any part of Islam can be separated from the acts of 911, or the AMERICAN Muslim Sergeant that shot up an Army base, or bomb targets that were planned in American Mosques,  are deceiving themselves.     


*Jeffrey Hoffman 15 hours ago: “That moment when you realize that having drunk an entire chalice worth of the consecrated wine, you are officially drunk on Jesus….” “Too much was left over… and I am not as think as your drunk I am.” ” Bob Jones can kiss my ashes.”

Jeffrey Hoffman has responded to this article’s question saying “The answer is no”. So then we have re-worded the question as “So does Jeffrey Hoffman support the RELIGION that sponsors terrorism, Islam?”

In the same manner that Jeffrey refused to answer whether or not the Roman Catholic Church was teaching “hate speech” for their views against homosexuality, Jeffrey refused to answer the question about supporting the religion that promotes terrorism and if you can find his page, he even saved us the trouble of screenshotting the conversation! Of course his reason for screen-shotting the conversation was to accuse 3 different people of someone named Jerry Kaifetz who recently had a falling out with Trisha Lacroix, but that just shows the extant of depravity in the minds of the anti-fundamentalist crowds they are so willing to play childish games they will blame 2 people (or 20 for that matter) of being the same person even though their doctrinal views are the difference between night and day!

It is pretty obvious that Jerry Kaifetz is no friend of the IFB and appears somewhat like some of the Do Right groups with attacks on the IFB although not quite as aggressive. This website clearly shows we are IFB and make no apologies for it. We even have a youtube video that has an audio recording of James Ach, and a video that we found made by Jerry Kaifetz that shows a clear difference in voice tone, depth, accent, annunciation and even in the face of such evidence, Jeffrey, Trisha Lacroix, Cathy Harris, Reiko Souma and a few others still follow Jeffrey’s accusations.

It is ironic that these accusations of me and Jerry Kaifetz being the same person never surfaced until Trisha Lacroix had several hundred people leave her group. This website has been here since August of 2012, and we have never changed our tune. Yet when Jerry Kaifetz called attention to some cartoon on Trisha’s page, it started an uproar that lead to an exodus out of her group and then all of a sudden, Trisha and Jeffrey put their heads together and the light bulb came on and, wallah! Jerry and James must be the same person because only Dr James Ach disagrees with Trisha and Jeffrey and all of the other anti-fundie groups.

In fact, the hundreds of people that left Trisha’s group are probably ALL Dr James Ach! And they call ME a conspiracy theorist!

The following is an excerpt taken from Norman Geisler’s “When Skeptics Ask, Chapter 12.

Additional Video Links at the end of this article.

“What is truth?” Pilate’s words ring with the cynicism of a man who has searched for it
but never found it. His implication is that there is no such thing. Pilate is not alone. Many
have followed the same road, so that what is taught in the schools is the same cynical
conclusion: There is no truth.
For the Christian, that view is not an option. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” ( John
17:17 ), and He said again, “I am … the truth” ( 14:6 ). There is truth; but what is the
nature of truth? More important, how can we know truth?
Have you heard this one yet? “Whatever is true for you may not be true for me.” Or
how about, “I’m really glad you found something that works for you.” What good does it
do to tell someone about Jesus if he doesn’t realize that you are saying, “This is true for
everyone, everywhere, at all times, and it is not compatible with any opposing system of
beliefs”? If we are going to tell the world that we have the truth, then we better have
some idea of what truth is. How else can we make them understand?
The claim that truth is relative might be understood as relative in two ways

Either truth is relative to time and space (it was true then, but not now), or it is relative to persons (true for me, but not for you). On the other hand, absolute truth implies at least two things: (1)
that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and
(2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth doesn’t
change; relative truth changes from time to time and person to person.
The relativist would say that the statement, “The pencil is to the left of the pad,” is
relative since it depends on which side of the desk you are standing. Place is always
relative to perspective, they say. But truth can be time-bound as well. At one time, it was
perfectly true to say, “Reagan is President,” but one can hardly say that now. It was true
at one time, but not now. The truth of such statements is irrevocably contingent on the
time at which they are said.
Likewise, the relativist claims that truth is dependent on the person making the
statement. If a Christian says, “Ye are gods” ( John 10:34 ), it means that we have the
image of God and are His representatives. If a Mormon says it, he is speaking of his hope
to be the deity of his own planet. If a pantheist says it, she means that humans are God.
The truth depends on the views of the one who makes the statement and his intended
meaning. Also, “I feel sick” may be true for me but not for everyone else in the world.
All these statements are true only in relation to the person who makes them.
But there seems to be a misunderstanding here. The interpretation of the relativist
appears to be misguided. As regards time and place, the perspective of the speaker,
temporal and spatial, is understood in the statement. For example, “Reagan is President,”
when said in 1986 is true and it always will be true. At no time will it cease to be true that
Reagan was President in 1986. If someone uses the same words in 1990, then he is
making a new and different truth claim, because the present tense is now four years
removed from the context of the other statement. The spatial and temporal context of
statements is an inherent part of the context which determines the meaning of that
assertion. However, if “Reagan is President” (said in 1986) is always true for everyone
everywhere, then it is an absolute truth. The same can be said about the pencil on the
desk. The perspective of the speaker is understood as part of the context. It is an absolute
“All Truth Is Perspectival”
Many people will tell you that all truth is really true from a certain way of seeing
things or perspective. The old story of six blind men and the elephant is often used to
illustrate and support this position. One blind man, feeling only the trunk, thought that
it was a snake. Another discovered only the ears and concluded that it was a fan. The
one who came across the body said that it was a wall and, after finding a leg, another
said it was a tree. Another holding the tail declared it was a rope. Finally, the last
blind man felt a pointed tusk and informed them that it was a spear. To some, this
proves that what you think is true is only a matter of your perspective of things. It
should be pointed out, though, that all of the blind men were wrong. None of their
conclusions were true, so this illustration says nothing about truths. There really was
an objective truth that all of them failed to discover

Also, the statement, “All truth is perspectival,” is either an absolute statement or a perspectival one.

If it is absolute, then not all truths are perspectival. If it is perspectival, then there is no reason to think :

that it is absolutely true—it is only one perspective. It does not succeed either way.

But what about the second version of relativism, that truth is relative to persons? If
we take the case of the Christian, the Mormon, and the pantheist, we see that the same
problem of excluding perspective is involved. Using the same words does not guarantee
the same meaning. We must consider what the actual claim is in its context before we can
tell if it is true. What about, “I feel sick”? Guess what: personal pronouns don’t even
transfer as well as verb tenses. It doesn’t matter that the same words are used; when said
by different people, they take on a different meaning. Are these statements true for
everyone? Yes, it is true that the person called “I” in the sentence did feel sick at that
time and that must be acknowledged as true by everyone (though we have to take “I’s”
word about how he felt). In the same way, the meanings attached to the words “ye are
gods” truly reflect the views of the people who said them, and it will never be not true for
anyone, anytime, that those were their views when they stated them (even if they change
their views later).
Now about this time a relativist might say, “You are agreeing with me. You are
saying that truth is relative to the context.” That’s close. We are saying that meaning is
relative to the context. As for truth, we are saying that once the context is brought into the
picture, the meaning is understood and it becomes obvious that these are absolute truths.
We are not agreeing at all.
But relativism runs into other problems. If relativism were true, then the world would
be full of contradictory conditions. That pencil that we mentioned would be on all four
sides of the pad at the same time. “I” would have to be sick, well, angry, delighted,
hungry, stuffed, excited, and ambivalent all at once. How confusing! Such contradictory
conditions are impossible.
Also, no relativist can say, “It is absolutely true that this is true for me.” If truth can
only be relative, then it must only be relatively true for him. But wait a minute! THAT
can’t be claimed in any absolute sense either—it can only be relatively true that it is
relatively true for him. Should we keep going? Either the claim that truth is relative is an
absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist’s position, or it is an assertion that can
never be made, because every time you make it you have to add another “relatively.” It is
just the beginning of an infinite regress that will never pay off in a real statement.
“Life Is but a Dream”
Some might tell you that we each create our own reality. What is real to you is not
real to me because your dream is not my dream. In fact, you only perceive me in your
dream and don’t know whether I am real or not. Not only is truth subjective, there is
no absolute reality to be known. All reality is nothing but imagination run wild.
Something intuitively tells us that this view can’t be true. First, “nothing but”
statements assume “more than” knowledge.

But how can anyone have knowledge that is beyond their own dream?

For that matter, how can you have knowledge that is
“more than” all of reality? One would have to be omniscient to say this. Furthermore,
is this a statement about absolute reality or only about one person’s dream? If it is
really a statement about “all reality” in an absolute sense, then it cannot be true—for
at least this statement is true whether someone imagines it or not. But if it is only a
subjective statement about one person’s dream, then it makes no claim to be true and
can be dismissed. It might not hurt to remind such a person that he should not talk in
his sleep.
Of course, there are some benefits to relativism. It means that you can never be
wrong. As long as it is right for me, I’m right even when I’m wrong! Isn’t that
convenient? The drawback is that I could never learn anything either, because learning is
moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an
absolutely true one. Maybe we’d better give absolutism another look.
Some people see problems in absolutism. “Don’t you have to have absolute evidence
to believe in absolute truth?” No. The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds
for believing it are. We might not even know a truth, but it is still absolute in itself. The
truth doesn’t change just because we learn something about it.
“What about in-between things—like what warm means, or when not shaving
becomes a beard—how can those things be absolute?” The fact that it is in-between to me
is an absolute fact for all men, even if it is not in-between to them. Also, the condition
itself, the real temperature and the exact length of the beard, are objective and real
conditions. That truth doesn’t change either.
“You Christians Are So Closed-Minded”
Open-mindedness has become a self-evident virtue in our society and a closed mind,
a sign of ignorance and depravity. However, this thinking is based on half-truths.
Surely, it is good to admit the possibility that one might be wrong and never good to
maintain a position no matter what the evidence is against it. Also, one should never
make a firm decision without examining all the evidence without prejudice. That is
the half-truth that ropes us into this view, but a half-truth is a whole lie. Are we still to
remain open-minded when all reason says that there can be only one conclusion? That
is the same as the error of the closed mind. In fact, openness is the most closedminded position of all because it eliminates any absolute view from consideration.
What if the absolute view is true? Isn’t openness taken to be absolute? In the long
run, openness cannot really be true unless it is open to some real absolutes that cannot
be denied. Open-mindedness should not be confused with empty-mindedness. One
should never remain open to a second alternative when only one can be true.
“If truth never changes, then there can’t be any new truth.” New truth can be
understood in two ways. It might mean “new to us,” like a new discovery in science. But
that is only a matter of us discovering an old truth. The truth has always been there, but
we are just finding out about it.

The other way we might understand new truth is that something new has come into existence.

Absolutism has no trouble handling this either.
When January 1, 2022 arrives, a new truth will be born because then it will be true to say,
“This is January 1, 2022.” That can never be true before then. “Old” truths don’t change
but “new” truths can come to be.
There are two basic views of what truth is. One says that truth is what corresponds to
reality. The other says that a view is true if it coheres or holds together as an internally
consistent set of statements. The former says that truth is what corresponds to reality.
Truth is “telling it like it is.” The latter compares truth to a web hanging in space so that
its own network of connections upholds it. Like a chain, each link is dependent on the
others to hold it together.
The implications of the coherence theory are that some truths are truer than others
because they cohere better. There are degrees of truth and any statement is true only to
the extent that it fits into the system.
Saying that there are degrees of truth, as the coherentist does, and that all truths are
dependent is just another way of saying that all truth is relative. If all statements are
dependent (contingent) on the system, then no truth can be absolute. Even the system as a
whole is not absolute, because it depends on the coherence of all of its contingent parts. If
one statement can be more or less true than another statement, isn’t that the same as
saying that its truth is relative to the truth of the other? But we have already shown that
truth is, and must be, absolute. If the coherence theory says that truth is relative, then the
theory must be wrong.
Another objection to the coherentist view is that it makes truth dependent on an infinite
regress that will never arrive at any truth. If every truth claim presupposes some other
claim, and so on to infinity, then we have an infinite regress that will never assure us that
we have arrived at truth. For every explanation we give of why our belief is true, we
would have to explain its presuppositions, and then explain that explanation, and so on
forever. We could never finish explaining anything. If we did find an explanation that
needed no further explanation, then we will have arrived at a foundation (a self-evident
truth or undeniable first principle), and the coherence view was wrong to begin with. C.S.
Lewis put it this way:
But you cannot go on “explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained
explanation itself away. You cannot go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole
point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the
window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if
you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles.

If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world
is an invisible world. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.
If we have to look behind or “see through” every explanation, then we will never find
anything. But don’t we search for truth because we expect to find something?
This infinite regress makes coherentism impossible. It is really a chain of unsupported
claims. After all, a chain can’t just hang in the air by itself; there has got to be a peg
somewhere that holds the whole chain up. And spiders don’t build webs in empty space.
They attach them to the walls. No system can stand without some absolute truth to
support it. Also, the best that a coherentist can do in evaluating other systems of belief is
to say that his system coheres better. He can never say that any other coherent system is
false. In that case, we could never refute pantheism, because once you throw out logic,
everything coheres.
Truth must be based on a firm foundation of self-evident truths or first principles that
correspond to reality. We will discuss self-evident truths a little later, but let’s focus on
the correspondence part of the definition for right now. There are several reasons for
accepting it, both from the Bible and from philosophy.
The Scriptures use the correspondence view of truth quite a bit. The ninth
commandment certainly presupposes it. “You shall not bear false witness against your
neighbor” ( Ex. 20:16 ) implies that the truth or falsity of a statement can be tested by
whether it checks out with the facts. When Satan said, “You shall not surely the,” it is
called a lie because it does not correspond to what God actually said.
Jack Rogers’ View of Truth
Jack Rogers, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, has given the definition of
truth that is currently being used to say that the Bible is infallible in its intentions
(purpose), but not inerrant in its affirmations. He says, “to confuse ‘error’ in the sense
of technical accuracy with the biblical notion of error as willful deception diverts us
from the serious intent of Scripture.” He rejects the idea that truth must correspond to
reality with “technical accuracy.” Rather, he asserts that the “biblical notion of error”
involves knowingly telling a lie. Truth resides in the intention of the author rather
than what he actually said. This is confirmed when he says that inerrancy distracts us,
not from the message of Scripture, but from its “intent.” As long as the prophets and
disciples did not know any better than to make unscientific statements, they cannot be
considered errors because there was no intentional deception. Though Jesus may have
known better. He chose to accommodate to the popular views so that people would
not be distracted from His intended message, the Gospel. Those who hold this view
are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

1 C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 91.

Joseph also used the correspondence theory when he said to his brothers, “Send one
of you that he may get your brother.…that your words may be tested, whether there is
truth in you” ( Gen. 42:16 ). Moses said that a prophet should be tested by seeing if his
prophecies correspond to actual events ( Deut. 18:22 ). When Solomon built the temple
he said, “Let Your word that You promised Your servant David my father come true” ( 1
Kings 8:26 , NIV ). Anything that does not correspond to God’s Law is considered false (
Ps. 119:163 ). And in the New Testament, Jesus says that His claims can be verified by
John the Baptist, saying, “You have sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth.”
The Jews also told the governor that he could “learn the truth” ( Acts 24:8 , 11 ) about the
charges they brought against Paul by examining the facts.
Philosophically, lying is impossible without a correspondence to reality. If our words
do not need to correspond to the facts, then they can never be factually incorrect. Without
a correspondence view of truth, there can be no true or false. There would be no real
difference in the accuracy of how a system describes a given fact because we could not
appeal to the fact as evidence. Statements could not be judged as true or false, but only
more or less cohesive. There has got to be a real difference between our thoughts about
things and the things themselves for us to say whether something is true or false.
Furthermore, all factual communication would break down. Statements that inform you
of something must correspond to the facts about which they claim to be giving
information. But if those facts are not to be used in evaluating the statement, then I really
haven’t told you anything. I have merely babbled something that you ought to consider
and weigh its relevance to your own system of thought. Now this could be quite
dangerous if you were crossing the street and my statement was to inform you that a
Mack truck was coming. How long should you take to see if that fits into your overall
network of beliefs? (And does not the Gospel carry the same kind of urgency?)
Correspondence to reality is a philosophical prerequisite for truth and truthful
Another theory is that truth is not a quality of propositions, but of intentions. Adherents
of this theory say that the meaning of any statement lies not in what it says about reality,
but in what the person intended to affirm when he said it. A statement is considered true
if it achieves its intended purpose and false only if it is intended to mislead someone.
Hence, a person can make statements which do not correspond to the facts but are not lies
or errors because the person meant to tell the truth—he did not intend to deceive. This
view has special relevance to the debate about whether there are errors in the Bible in that
some claim there can be factual inconsistencies in the Bible and still call the Scriptures
infallible. It is claimed that they infallibly accomplish their purpose of leading men to
Christ and the authors never intentionally deceived anyone.
The correspondence view says that truth resides in propositions. Meaning is a
disclosure of the author’s intentions, but it can only be discovered by looking at what he
actually said. Since we cannot read the author’s mind when we want to know the
meaning of a statement, we look at the statement itself.

Only when we see the proper relation of all the words in the sentence, and the sentence to the paragraph, etc., do we
understand the big meaning of the affirmation. Then we check it against reality to see if it
is true or false.
Is truth ever in a person rather than a proposition? Out of the hundred or so times that
“truth” is used in the New Testament, only one passage indisputably uses truth of a
Person ( John 14:6 ). Other texts refer to truth being in a person ( 1:14 , 17 ; 8:44 ; 1 John
2:4 ) or walking in truth ( 2 John 4 ). However, the context of these clarifies that the truth
is tested by the correspondence between the person’s behavior and God’s commands,
which are propositions. So even here truth is correspondence. Persons, their character,
and conduct can correspond to reality as well as propositions can. The emphasis of the
biblical text is certainly on prepositional truth. And passages where truth is used of a
person can be understood as relating to the truthfulness of that person’s words or works,
as to whether or not they correspond to God’s reality.
Even if some passages do use truth as a quality of persons, only the correspondence
view can accommodate both interpretations. The personal view says that truth does not
reside in propositions, but a correspondence view can say that the persons or actions in
question must correspond to God’s expectations. And the passages where truth is clearly
seen as propositional and correspondent cannot all be explained in a noncorrespondence
Just to top it off, any attempt to deny that truth is expressible in propositions is selfdefeating ,because it is a truth claim expressed in a proposition. Hence, the correspondence view of truth must be accepted for truth to reside in both persons and propositions.
Even among Christians there is a wide range of beliefs about how and how much we can
know about truth, especially truth about God. If what we have said so far is true though,
then only one of these positions is really reasonable.
There is a real difference between agnosticism and skepticism but the answers to both of
them are almost identical. Agnosticism says that nothing can be known, but skepticism
only says that we should doubt whether anything can be known. Skepticism came along
first, but as Immanuel Kant read David Hume’s doubts about absolute knowledge, he
decided to take it one step farther and disclaimed all knowledge of reality. Really both of
these views are self-defeating. If you know that you don’t know anything, then at least
you know that much. But that means you have positive knowledge of something and you
no longer have to be agnostic. Likewise, you may say that you should doubt everything,
but you don’t doubt that. That is, you don’t doubt that you should doubt. Now if there is one thing that you can be certain of (to the skeptic), or one thing that you can know (to
the agnostic), then there might be other things, and your position has proven itself to be
Dealing with Skeptics
One great philosopher had an effective way to deal with skepticism. When
encountered by people who claimed to doubt everything, he would ask, “Do you
doubt your own existence?” If they answered yes, then he would point out that they
must exist in order to doubt and that certainty should remove their doubts. If they
answered no, then he could show them that there are at least some things which are
beyond doubt. To counter this assault on their doctrines, Ac skeptics decided to
simply remain silent. Then they would not be caught in his trap. The philosopher was
not shaken though. At that point, he simply said, “I guess there is nobody here after
all. I may as well go talk to somebody who exists.” And he walked away.
Rationalism is not merely a view that says we use reason to test truth. Rationalism says
that we can determine all truth by logic. It says that we can rationally prove the existence
and nature of God. For a rationalist, no appeal to evidence can overturn a logical
demonstration. That is why Spinoza, having proven to his own satisfaction that all reality
was unified in absolute being, denied that anything in the world had existence distinct
from God, or that there was any free will. That is why Leibniz maintained that this is the
best of all possible worlds, no matter how bad things get. He was convinced by
rationalism that only the greatest good can exist. All truth is logically necessary to a
Irrational Rationalism
Oddly enough, the most stubborn rationalists in the world are pantheists, who don’t
believe in reason. Even from pantheism’s earliest statements in Western culture,
pantheists have begun with one principle and derived all others from it: All is one.
Now if that is true, they say, then whatever seems to be more than one must be
illusion. Hence, there is no matter, no evil, no right and wrong, etc. All of these things
follow from the one principle and are determined by a rationalistic method that allows
no evidence to contradict it. Most extraordinarily, rationalism leads them to the
rejection of reason. For once the distinction between true and false is removed, then
rationalism demands that logic be revoked. Reason, having gotten them this far, must
now be jettisoned because of the determinative nature of their original principle.
Rationalism becomes the foe of reason.
The big problem with rationalism is that it is a castle built in the air that has no link
with reality. It assumes—but does not prove—that the rationally inescapable is the real.
In fact, in all of its logical rationalizing, it never proves that anything real even exists.

The only way that rationalism can overcome these weaknesses is to quit being
rationalism and begin accepting some empirical evidence. Also, my own existence is
actually undeniable, but it is not logically necessary. There is nothing in my existence
that even suggests that I, or anything else, must exist, yet rationalism says, again without
solid proof, that this is logically necessary. Finally, when rationalism tries to prove its
own principles to offer a justification for itself, it fails doubly. The attempt itself is futile
because everyone from Aristotle to the present has agreed that first principles cannot be
proven; they must be self-evidently true and in need of no further explanation. Otherwise
you have to go on explaining forever. But rationalists fail again in that they don’t agree
on what the first principles are. Some end up in pantheism, some in theism, some with
finite gods, but none with the rationally necessary basis that they claim will justify their
Fideism holds that the only way we can know anything about God is by faith. Truth is
subjective and personal, so we can believe it but not prove it. There are no rational proofs
or empirical evidence that can lead us to knowledge of God. We must simply believe that
what He has said in His Word and done in our lives is true. Ultimately, as the old hymn
says, “You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart.” Søren Kierkegaard is
a spokesman of this view.
“Truth Is Subjectivity”
Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, wrote an essay with this title. He
was concerned that, if Christianity was accepted only as a set of propositions, then it
would never lead one to a relationship with God. Hence, rather than focusing on the
objective truth of the faith, he stressed that it must be true to the individual or it is not
true at all. Faith “that” something was true was surpassed by faith “in” something.
“But the above definition for truth is an equivalent expression for faith. Without
risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion
of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of
grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I
must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon
holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy
fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.” [ Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific
Postscript, trans. by David F. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963),
p. 182.]
Now we certainly don’t want to demean the importance of faith. In fact, we often cite
the phrase of Augustine, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Also, logical
arguments are certainly not the basis of religious commitment. However, fideism has the
right answers for the wrong reasons. We can’t begin by assuming that God exists and has
revealed Himself in the Bible and works in the lives of His people. Those are the very
things that the unbeliever questions.

The main problem is that fideism doesn’t recognize the difference between belief in
and belief that. Evidence and logical proofs can assist us toward belief that God exists,
the Bible is His Word, etc., but they cannot make us commit our lives to those truths.
Commitment is belief and trusting in the Lord. Fideists only see the latter and overlook
the need for the former. Hence, they make no distinction between the basis of belief in
God (the truth of His Word) and the support or warrant for that belief. They require men
to believe in God without allowing them to first understand that there is a God to be
believed (see Heb. 11:6 ).
Besides, if faith alone is the only way to know truth, why not have faith in the Koran
or the Book of Mormon? Fideism doesn’t really attempt to justify any beliefs, so we
could simply believe anything that we wanted. The net result is that fideism really makes
no truth claims. It has to offer some way to test truth before it can make a truth claim.
Since it doesn’t have any test for truth, it can’t really make any claim to be true. It isn’t
even in the marketplace pushing its claims as true. Now if someone does begin to offer
some explanation or defense of why he is a fideist, then he has ceased to be one. The
minute he offers anything other than, “Believe it,” as support for his position, he has
stopped being a fideist and begun using justifiable beliefs. Either fideism is making no
truth claims or it is self-defeating. In either case, it cannot answer the question of how we
know about God.
The final view says that we can know some things about God. The other views are either
inconsistent or self-defeating. This one stands. We can’t know everything (rationalism),
for there is no way that a finite mind can comprehend all of an infinite being. But we do
know something because agnosticism is self-defeating. This is a reasonable and realistic
view. But the question remains. How do we know what we know about God? And that is
the last question we have to consider.
We can know what we know about God because thought applies to reality. In that
context, knowledge is possible. If thought does not apply to reality, then we can know
nothing. Logic is a necessary presupposition of all thought. Without logic (the laws of
thought), we can’t even think. But is it only a presupposition? How do we know that
logic applies to reality? We know it because it is undeniable.
Now this gets us back to those self-evident first principles that we mentioned earlier.
Don’t let that scare you. You can understand Winnie-the-Pooh, can’t you? Well, Pooh
had an adventure that illustrates how self-evident principles work. He was walking
through the forest when he came to Rabbit’s house.
So he bent down, put his head into the hole, and called out: “Is anybody at home?”
There was a sudden scuffling noise from inside the hole, and then silence.
“What I said was, ‘Is anybody home?’ “ called out Pooh very loudly.
“No!” said a voice; and then added, “You needn’t shout so loud. I heard you quite
well the first time.”
“Bother!” said Pooh. “Isn’t there anybody here at all?”
Winnie-the-Pooh took his head out of the hole, and thought for a little, and he
thought to himself, “There must be somebody there, because somebody must have said
‘Nobody.’ “
See, it’s that simple. We’ve been doing it together all through the book.

A selfevident principle is one that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the
process of the denial. Rabbit’s statement is really the reverse of this. It’s self-defeating,
and you have seen that word several times in this chapter. If you have to assume that a
statement is true in order to deny it, it is actually undeniable. First principles, which are
the starting point of all truth and the foundation of all thought, are these kind of
Logic applied to reality is a key example. Now all logic can be reduced to one single
axiom—the law of noncontradiction. This law says that no two opposite statements can
both be true at the same time in the same sense. Logicians usually simplify that to A is
not non-A. If we try to deny that, we get, “Two contradictory statements can be true,” or
“A is not [not non-A].” Both of these statements have a problem. They assume what they
are trying to deny. In the first, it still assumes that there can be truth without the law of
noncontradiction. But if opposites can be true then there is no difference between true
and false, so this statement cannot be true, as it claims to be. The symbolic form does the
same thing by clinging to the idea that A is still identifiable from anything else. The law
of noncontradiction cannot be denied because any denial assumes that opposites cannot
be true, and that is exactly what is being denied. So we find that the basis of logic is an
undeniable first principle.
But the statement, “Logic applies to reality,” is also undeniable. To say that logic
does not apply to reality, you have to make a logical statement about it. But if it takes a
logical statement to deny logic, then your actions defeat the purpose of your words.
Either way, logic must apply to reality. And if logic applies to reality, then we can use it
to test truth claims about reality.

2 A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh (New York: Dutton, 1961), p. 24. But let’s back up. Why do there have to be some self-evident, undeniable first principles? As we said before, agnosticism is self-defeating. We do know something.
And we know that it is impossible for every truth claim to be dependent on another truth
so that an infinite regress develops. Therefore, there must be some truths that stand all by
themselves and don’t need any further justification. We can’t get behind them or “see
through” them to find out why they are like that. That is why they are called first
principles—they have no other principles before them. It’s not that they are without
justification; rather, they justify themselves by being undeniable.
Really, we can recognize that these ideas are self-evident by intuition, without having
to test them by attempting to deny them. But sometimes we don’t understand what they
really mean, and the denial test brings this out.

In other words, sometimes they are selfevident in themselves, but not to us because we don’t understand them well enough. That
explains why these truths are not universally accepted and why we sometimes have to
examine them to see that they are undeniable.
What are some self-evident truths? We can find examples in every area of thought.
Without attempting an explanation, here are a few. All of these have been used at least
once in this book. See if you can recognize them as you use the book.

I. Self-evident propositions about logic
A. Law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A).
B. Law of identity (A is A).
C. Law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).
D. Laws of valid inference.
II. Self-evident propositions about knowledge
A. Something can be known.
B. Opposites cannot both be true.
C. Everything cannot be false.
III. Self-evident propositions about existence
A. Something exists (e.g., I do).
B. Nothing cannot produce something.
C. Everything that comes to be is caused. These principles become the foundation for all knowledge. From this point,logic and evidence can confirm that God exists and that Christ is His Son. Truth has an absolute
foundation in undeniable first principles and it can be tested through logical means
because it ultimately corresponds to reality. Christianity claims to be true and it bids all to
come in and dine at the table of truth.



Errors of Bart Ehrman

May Women Preach?

Posted: February 1, 2013 in Apologetics, Bible Doctrine

In perusing the DRHAC blog today, a post was made by Cynthia Umling McClasky on how the IFB brainwashes its members into following false doctrine and sites an article entitled Women May Preach? to show the fundamentalists’ error in subjecting women to abuse or as she describes it, leads to slander, contempt and harassment of women.

The question that will be addressed is, may women preach? And the answer is: NO, and I will use the article she posted to rebut the numerous misinterpreted passages of Scripture.

First, this is very simple. Paul gives the instructions for the qualifications of the bishop (preacher, pastor etc) in 1 Tim 3:2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” It says the HUSBAND of one WIFE. It does not say the wife of one husband. And to make sure there is no room for error in misunderstanding this passage, Paul writes in verse 11, “ Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things”  The entire chapter makes it perfectly clear that the office of the bishop over the church is to be a male figure.

Paul reiterates this same message in Titus 1:6-7 ” If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre”.

Paul further instructs that a woman is not to have authority over a man, which she would if she were a preacher. And the follow-up is that she learn is silence. I Tim 2:12. Now this verse can and has been misinterpreted by many even in fundamentalist circles that a woman can never speak or speak up at all. The Greek word used here for “silence” is “hesuchia” which means a person that quietly works at home that doesn’t meddle with the affairs of others. In context with Paul’s command for a woman not to teach, usurp authority over the man, being in silence means not challenging his authority as the pastor. That does not mean she can not tell her husband that the preacher is speaking something that is clearly heretical, but she does not have the right to question his position as the pastor of the church. This does not mean she is never allowed to question him at all, but not his official capacity in his function of the office of the pastorate.

Only dishonest scholarship and Bible rejecting Egalitarianists attempt to perform the Biblical gymnastics necessary to make these verses mean something other than the plain meaning they were intended to give.

MAY WOMAN PREACH (Bushnell is listed as the author, and since it is dated 1923, I am assuming it is Katharine Bushnell, the woman considered to be the founding mother of feminist theology.)

Although this subject could be extended beyond this short article, I am going to limit it to a critique of this article.

The Church has often told woman — we might say very loudly– that Paul commanded her to “keep silence in the
churches.” The Church has told woman very softly, or not at all, that Jesus Christ obliged one woman to NOT KEEP
SILENCE (emphasis mine), but to proclaim before a great multitude, made up largely of men, that Christ had redeemed
her from that very “curse,” as it has been called, which is supposed by some to lie at the base of the doctrine of silence
and subordination for women, and which was the pretext for her original exclusion from service at the altar.~Bushnell

Bushnell did not address the specific reference to where Christians get this idea that “woman should be silent in the churches”. It is found in I Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church

Critics try to explain away this verse by either claiming that is was only cultural or based on a rabbinical reading and therefore not authoritative even though it was given to a GENTILE church to whom Paul was the apostle of (Rom 11:13) and in verse 37 Paul tells the church that what he says are the commandments of the Lord.

The main context was regarding speaking in tongues and the abuse of it in preaching the word of God in a church with unbelievers. (We at DRC are cessationists, but will not go into that issue in this article.) Although many churches have misapplied this verse to say that women should not speak at all, implying that because they talk too much they are expected to wait until they get home, that is not what the context is about. The context is directed at women preaching in the church.


The account of this woman’s case will be found in Luke 8:43-48. Zechariah had proclaimed, 500 years before this
incident, that there was to be a “fountain opened for sin and uncleanness” (13:1), referring to the coming Christ, and
using the very word for “uncleanness” which, according to Levitical law, separated a woman from the congregation of
Israel (Lev. 15:19). Men straight from a battle; from stumbling over a grave in the churchyard; from administering
comfort in the home of the dead, and from many other conditions producing that same state called “separation,” (or
“uncleanness,” as translated), for which exclusion from the congregation of Israel was prescribed, have never thought of
excluding themselves, even temporarily, from the altar of the Church. In a word, men found that “fountain for sin and
uncleanness” when Christ came and took full advantage of it; but presently they excluded women from its benefits, and
placed her back under Levitical disabilities.

We have a lesson to learn from Christ’s bringing the woman to the front to declare her own redemption from an
infirmity, instead of His merely declaring it for her. It is not enough that Christ’s teaching is plain on this subject, WE
WOMEN MUST PROCLAIM THIS (emphasis mine). It is not enough for women to modestly and quietly seek their own
redemption, they must proclaim it, even when that proclamation lays them open to the FALSE CHARGE OF IMMODESTY
(emphasis mind)[sic]~Bushnell [I am assuming that the ’emphasis mine’ were added by Cynthia]

Here Bushnell is equating personal redemption from sin to liberation of women from rules that restrict their role in the church. There is absolutely nothing in the context of Luke 8 that can be used to reinterpret what Paul said in I Corinthians 14, Timothy or Titus. There is nothing in this verse that gives a woman the authority to preach or pastor a church merely because she was purified of her uncleanness by Christ.

LUKE 13:11-13

This brings us to another lesson that Christ taught, when he caused yet another woman NOT TO KEEP SILENCE. This case
is recorded in Luke 13:11-13. We can easily picture this poor deformed creature making her way wearily to the
synagogue, to hear the great Prophet; climbing the steps to the stuffy little compartment behind the lattice, usually up
in the gallery under the roof. How amazed she must have been to have the great Prophet call out suddenly, “Mary,
come here to me.” the other women help her to descend as quickly as possible, and she walks up the aisle to the
platform with trembling feet, and stands in a most unusual position–out in public, among all the men! Gently He spoke
to her and “laid His hands on her,” and behold! not only is she “loosed from her infirmity; “she was made straight and
glorified God.” This means, of course, that she broke the silence with her hallelujahs, and with rapid toungue [sic]began to
tell eagerly all about her former suffering, and healing, to all in the synagogue~Bushnell

This is what Luke 13:11-13 actually says:

And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

First of all, the article is supposed to be about woman preaching in the church. Secondly, there is nothing in the context the indicates Jesus told her to say anything, let alone to “NOT..KEEP SILENCE”. She glorified God as a result of being healed, not because she was told to. And again, this passage has nothing to do with a woman preaching in a church. Her response was reactionary not imperative.


This act of the “laying on of hands” afterwards came into use among the Apostles as the ceremony which fitted men for preaching the Gospel and to this day men boast that they are in the “Apostolic Succession,” which means that someone laid hands on them, who had had hands laid upon him, of one who had hands laid upon him, of one, etc., etc., all the way back to an Apostle. They forget that this “laying on of hands” goes farther back than to the Apostles, to a certain woman, who had Christ’s hands laid upon her; and she immediately responded by publicly glorifying God, in spite of the prohibitions of man. Men might have been not merely in the “Apostolic succession,” but in the Divine succession, had they not despised the ministry of women. They should have sought of this woman the “laying on of hands,” if there be any virtue in “succession”.~Bushnell

In this argument, Bushnell attempts to equate the laying on of hands for healing, with the laying on of hands for placing a man in the ministry.(see 2 Timothy 1:6.) And she offers a gross interpolation of traditions to make a completely unsupported premise that the laying on of hands for healing morphed into the practice of laying on of hands for ministry. She argues that the Jews in the temple opposed this laying on of hands and that Jesus gave her permission to defy mens orders, and thus the precedent is established that woman are not under the authority of men in the church. Again, a gross interpretation of Scripture. What the Jews were angry about was not that Jesus healed a WOMAN, or that a woman spoke in church, but that he healed her on the Sabbath. This issue was a major point of contention with the Pharisees against Jesus and was a debate that occurred quite often (Mark 3:1-6, John 7:23-24, Luke 14:1, Matthew 12:10, John 9:14-16, Luke 6:2).

While we are on the subject of laying on of hands for the ministry, there is not one single verse in the Bible where any apostle ever laid hands on a woman to ordain her into the office of bishop.


Critics attempt to use Deborah as proof that God ordained woman to the ministry. Deborah was a judge (Judges 4:4), not a priest, she was not given the charge over a congregation of spiritual matters, but as a judge was an enforcer of the law, and a prophetess, and this was an exception, not the rule in those times. And even if it was the rule, it would not over-ride Paul’s commands in the New Testament. Although women like Deborah, Huldah, Anna, provide remarkable examples of the character, courage, and charisma of godly women in the Bible, their examples can not be used to prove that women preachers are permitted in the New Testament church.

Even during the tribulation, when God seals 144,000 servants whom work with His 2 witnesses in Rev 11:3 (Rev 7:4), all 144,000 are men (Rev 14:4).

Romans 16:1-2 is where the Bible rejectors (NIV, NASB, ASV et al) butcher the text to prove that Phebe was a “deaconess” instead of what the King James accurately translates as “servant” because the Greek word is diakanon. The first Protestant reading with this perversion was in the Amplified Version New Testament in 1958.

The issue with translating diakanon as “deacon” is that it is a neutral word, not  feminine. In Romans 15:8, diakanon is translated as “minister” refering to Christ, and Christ was not a deacon, He was an Apostle (Heb 3:1). The same word is also translated “minister” in Eph 3:7 and is used to describe the function of Paul’s work, not his title. The requirement of a DEACON is to be the “HUSBAND of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12). Therefore to translate diakanon as “deaconess” is erroneous.

This does not exclude women from being helpers in the church as Paul described Phebe (Rom 16:2, “succourer” means helper), but there is no justification whatsoever for relying on Rom 16:1-2 as a proof text for women preachers.


Although the Bible is clear that women are not permitted to serve as pastors, that does not mean these are proof texts for bullying or harassment. The Scripture is clear that elderly women are to be treated as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, and WITH ALL PURITY (that means no raping them, no molesting them, no abusing them, no talking dirty to them)1 Tim 5:1-3. And especially for married couples where the husband beats his wife over the head with Ephesians 5. Ephesians 5 does not give the husband authority to dominate a woman and make her his slave. Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 7 that the woman’s body belongs to the man, and the man’s to the woman (in marriage) which clearly demonstrates an equal partnership, not a “do as I say or you are being disobedient” type attitude. Being the ‘head’ over the household does not mean being a control freak.

Now granted, the role that women have taken on today whether it’s in the workplace, in the church and in making choices and decisions that the husband clearly has the final authority on has caused a breeding ground of rebellion and feminazi mentality. There’s a “new age” of woman’s liberation and Titus chapter 2 is not in it. And those women can not claim exemption by pointing to God and saying ” the husband thou gavest me”. But men need to bear the responsibility of treating their wives as Christ loved the church. Since a woman is crafted physiologically, mentally and biologically different from a man, WHAT you say may make sense to you, but HOW you say it may mean 10 different things to her. “A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stirreth up anger”. I have never met a man who boldly claimed his authority over a women that didn’t do so in an angry manner, and if men act like that, the women is going to rebel. A Proverbs 31 woman, or an Abigail is a rare breed, but there is a way to help her WANT to become one and it has everything to do with your attitude, HOW you talk to her and communicate, HOW you listen to her. This doesn’t mean that a husband gives in when his wife is clearly acting in a unscriptural manner, but “He that handleth a matter wisely shall find good” Prov 16:20. Too many men today treat their wives like a doormat by failing to understand  what the Bible says about the roles of women AND MEN.

A husband that dwells with his wife according to knowledge (I Peter 3:7), will seek to understand her, and work toward intimacy (into me see). God made woman from a rib under man’s heart, not from his foot. True, that men are not good communicators in general, but if God told the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church, any husband that is not willing to get out of his nothing box and learn how to love her is a lazy, rebellious and sinful man.

God has ordained a role for the woman, and a role for the man, and has clearly defined the boundaries of each in marriage and in the church. That may not be popular, and it may not fit today’s cultural ideologies, but what is written is what is written; but there is no reason for that to be a cause of contention between Christian men and women. God did not write the boundaries to make relationships oppressive, and when the proper balance is achieved and the Scriptures applied in context, men and women, and couples, can and will find themselves blessed in the will of God!



This is so funny I had to write about it even though it is really not a laughing matter.

On a youtube video, I had commented this lady, Sandra Gigi, for leveling false accusations against the IFB churches. In response, to stated that I was judging and that she feels that the church has no right to say that Jesus is the only way to heaven. When I responded with the Biblical evidence, she responded with this video, here

Three things I want to address here; judging, evidence of salvation and deny Christ as the only way to heaven.


This is the most common and popular hypocritical slur against Christians. Those antagonist toward believers are permitted to smear Christians with any form of accusations imaginable, but God forbid that you tell them Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven and accusations that they are being judged by you come in droves. What they should really say is that “I like to gossip and criticize Christians but don’t you dare tell me I’m a sinner”

Did Jesus really say “don’t judge”? With all the cliches spewed surrounding Matthew 7 (“judge not that ye be not judged”) you would think so. But Jesus said to “judge righteous judgment” in John 7:24. The context of Matthew 7 is about condemning someone for doing the same actions that you are guilty of. If I am not guilty of rejecting Jesus Christ, then I am not judging someone when I tell them they will spend an eternity in the lake of fire if they reject Christ. This comment was directed at those who thought their own righteousness could save them, and they quickly condemned others when they themselves did not follow the whole law. see Matthew 23, James 2:4-10, Romans 2:1-14.

Evidence of Salvation

Sandra responds in this video “I was saved when I was 16 and I was sincere”, so does that prove someone was saved?

“Not everyone that says unto me ‘Lord , Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” Matt 7:21-23. John said in I John 2:19

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had  been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us”

While I can not judge the sincerity of someone’s profession, sincerity is not a Saviour. You can be sincere and sincerely WRONG. Jesus gave an example of how there are those who murder in the name of God that believe they are doing God’s service. John 16:2. They were sincere in their belief, but they were sincerely wrong.

When a person is saved, and the Holy Spirit takes up residence, the Holy Spirit battles against the flesh to prevent you from living the same way you did before you were saved. Gal 5:16-17. A person that makes a profession of faith and then does not continue in it, and especially denies the work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ, has no Biblical evidence that they were truly saved, regardless of how much they profess sincerity. “They that worship him must worship Him in Spirit and in TRUTH” John 4:24.

Christ Is the Only Way to Heaven

In Acts 4:12 we read, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” and in John 14:6 Jesus claimed “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the father but by me”. That is quite plain.

Jesus said in John 10:1, 9

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber…. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

And John goes further to state that he that denies that Jesus is the Christ, is the antichrist:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 John 2:22

When Paul confronted the men on Mars Hill about their superstitious beliefs in an unknown God, Paul corrected their error by declaring unto them Jesus Christ. Acts 17:22-34.

The saving power of Jesus Christ is exclusive of all other religions by the testimony of others in the Bible and Jesus’ own declarations. So if you believe in some other religion that believes Jesus is just a good moral character, what kind of good moral character lies to His followers and deceives them? If Jesus is not the only way, then He has lied to everyone because He clearly taught that He is the way, the truth and the life, and nobody comes to the Father but by Him.

Jesus went out of His way to prove He was not only the Son of God, but God manifested in the flesh. John 1:1, 14 , I Tim 3:16. Mary thought He was God. Luke 1:47, and even His enemies were going to stone Him because they understood His claims as being that of deity. John 10:33-35.  So for Jesus to claim to be God, and then suffer a horrible death for it, would make Him insane if it was not true.

But 3 days after Jesus was murdered, His tomb was empty, and He was seen of at least 500 people after His resurrection, and to this day the Jews had to create a story to explain His empty tomb. Therefore He is either a liar, a lunatic or He is what He claimed to be, the Lord Jesus Christ, God Almighty (Rev 1:8) and He is the only way to salvation.

Buddha is still in his grave. Confucius is dead and gone. Mohammad is buried and silent. There is not one religious leader who ever gave their life for the sin of the world, and then conquered death by raising from the dead as Christ did. All other religions emphasize what man can do for God, and attempt to create their own way to heaven ignoring that the God who created the heavens and the earth, the sea and fountain of waters who is perfect and of whom man’s righteousness are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6) compared to Him, made a provision in the death and resurrection of His Son where we would be permitted to rely on His righteousness to grant us eternal life by trusting in Him alone.

All have sinned, there is none righteous, no not one (Rom 3:10-23). Jesus is the only way because He is the only one that has ever been sinless, who lived in complete perfection from birth to His death on the cross. To make a profession that denies the Lord for who He is and what He has done is to blasphemously mock the life, deity, and work of Christ.

And if you believe that is “judging” you are going to be very angry with God the first 10,000 years in the lake of fire. You will regret it the first 30 seconds. People have created burn creams to cure small burn wounds on a small area of the body. Imagine that sensation being completely submerged in a flame that is never extinguished, and like the burning bush before Moses, you are never consumed by the fire, but are “tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels,and in the presence of the lamb” where “the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night” Rev 14:10-11. And God will have righteously judged thus.

I sincerely hope and pray those who believe that Christ is not the only way would study these words and ask God to open their eyes. If I am wrong about this, what I have I lost? I will simply die and be a memory (or not). But, if the word of God is true, and He is who He says He is, and there is a literal burning lake of fire where you will spend eternity for rejecting Him, the consequences of being sincere but sincerely wrong will offer you an eternity of misery and regret.

In reviewing the many threads on here where the issue of dispensationalism seems to always end up  being a side discussion, I figured I’d start a thread on the 3 major eschatological theories that are gaining popularity that seem to have at least one thing in common, disdain or disregard for dispensationalism and futurism, particularly where it comes to the rapture of the church, and the place and role of Israel in the Bible. The 3 views are Preterism,Historicism and Covenant Theology (which I will commonly refer to as the “3 views” even though some may overlap).

I do not wish to list the differences between all 3, but the problem that I have with all 3 views in what they have in common:

*That the book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70

*That Daniel and the majority of the book of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70 when Titus attacked Jerusalem

*That the church has replaced Israel

I have more objections to all 3 views than I have room to write on here so my explanations will not be exhaustive.

The Date of the Book of Revelation

Of the many objections I have against the 3 views, the early dating of the book of Revelation seems to me a blatantly dishonest and inconsistent interpretation of history and the Bible’s internal evidence for a late date (i.e. AD 95). Preterists such as Hank Haneggraff cherry-pick historians in that the “early fathers” are useful in supporting some of their apologetic claims for the validity of the Bible and early developed doctrines, but disgard them as reliable when their writings are in contradistinction to their eschatology.

If Revelation was written after AD 70, that destroys all eschatological views that view Daniels 70th week, Jesus Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Revelation 1-19 as having been fulfilled in AD 70 and demonstrates that all of Revelation is yet future.

Evidence For the Late Date of  Revelation

*Iraneus (AD 120-202)who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Iraneus holds that John wrote Revelation during the end of the reign of Domitian who did not begin his reign until 81 AD and was killed in AD 96.

*Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 160-220), Victorinus (AD 304), Eusibius (AD 260-340), Jerome (AD 340-419).

Although these men were not always doctrinally correct, their citations of John writing Revelation while on the Isle of Patmos under Domitians reign is a matter of recorded history not doctrinal exegesis.

*The Laodiceans are prospersous in Rev 3:17. Laodecea was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 61, it is highly unlikely that they recovered to such economic prosperity in only 9 years.

*The church of Smyrna was not in existence prior to AD 70. It is only mentioned by John in Rev 1:11 and 2:8.

The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation Were Not Fulfilled in AD 70

Preterists in particular lay heavy emphasis on the term “shortly come to pass” in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1:1 that shows the events described by Christ and John would have an immediate fulfillment. However, they are inconsistent in their application of these passages as Revelation 22:6, the counterpart to Rev 1:1 also states that the events the 3 views DO believe are yet future will also come to pass shortly. Furthermore, Paul states in Romans 16 that Satan would be bruised under our feet “shortly”. That has obviously not occurred. Therefore “shortly” is clearly not used to define an immediate fulfillment, at least from man’s perspective, but is a statement of an expecation of immanency.

Much of the futurist view and those who hold to a future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week are objected to by the other views as being fulfilled in Titus. It is almost a blasphemous interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 where the text is clear that the “prince to come” is referring to the antichrist, and not Jesus (Not only is this fact clear in the text of Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11:16-32). The other views attempt to squeeze Jesus baptism (which is not mentioned in Daniel), His ministry and crucifixion all in the final week of Daniel. However, Daniel makes it clear that the Messiah is “cut off” (crucified) BEFORE the one week is confirmed.

The other views attempt to allegorize the text claiming that Jesus rendered the oblations and sacrifices ineffective instead of as the text says, the prince would cause to cease. It is clear that the oblations and sacrifices did not cease until 40 years after Christ ascended, but their interpretation would require them to have ceased at Christ’s crucifixion if said event was the culmination of Daniel’s 70th week.

The other views point to the Olivet discourse where Jesus states “when ye see the armies compass Jerusalem about, flee into the mountains”. That never occured in AD 70. Titus surrounded Jerusalem and nobody was permitted exit from the city. What did happen in AD 70 after Titus regrouped was that the Jews were scattered throughout the world (“The Diaspora”), that is not quite the same as fleeing to the mountains “where the woman hath a place prepared of God that they shoud feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore days” Rev 12:6.

Other events that never occurred are as follows:

*Jesus never returned to the earth in VISIBLE fashion. Rev 1:7 (“every eye shall see him”).

*Nobody was subjected to the mark of the beast, or the number of his name. Although the other views attempt to ascribe this to Nero, 2 Thess makes it clear that the antichrist is destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, Nero committed suicide. Nero could only be considered a type of antichrist, but does not meet the requirements to be THE antichrist of Revelation 13, and Nero never had an image made that was to be worshipped and given life to (Rev 13:15). There is no historical evidence that anyone under Nero or Titus was prevented from buying or selling unless they had the mark of the beast or the number of his name, and there is no evidence that anyone was martyred because of rejecting such (Rev 15:1-3).

*The mount of olives did not split in two. Zechariah 14:4. Also, Revelation 6:14-15 states that every mountain and island were moved out of their places, and the heaven departed as a scroll.

*The Euphrates river was not dried up. Rev 9:14-15Rev 16:12

*The number of the armies in Rev 9:16 (200 million) far exceeds any amount of any army in existence at the time of Nero. Even today, the only army that could possibly fit that number would be China which fits Daniel and Revelation’s claim that this army comes from the East. This also brings up another fact that the armies gathered against Israel partly come from the East, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem. Therefore Titus and Nero could not possibly have fulfilled Daniel or Revelation.

*In AD 70, only ONE army attacked Jerusalem (Rome). Scripture indicates that God gathers ALL NATIONS against Jerusalem. Zech 12:314:2.

*The amount of the world’s population that is killed by the judgments never occurred in AD 70. Rev 6:8Rev 8:11Rev 9:15-20.

*The amount of physical destruction to the earth never occurred in AD 70. Rev 8:8-12.

Not only did these events not occur in AD 70, they have never occurred at any time since then. Historicists and some Covenanters attempt to explain they gradually occurred  through out history, but that is not only a gross interpretation of Scripture, but it defies all of the timelines given in Revelation that make it clear all of these events occur within a 7 year period. Rev 8:111:312:61413:5.

There are many more examples, but these should be enough to prove that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (among others) were not fulfilled in AD 70, nor at any other time in history to date.

The Church Has Not Replaced Israel

The claim that the church has inherited all of the promises of the covenants to Israel and thus has replaced Israel is probably the most popular that unites all 3 views. All 3 views deny that God will restore the literal nation of Israel in the end times. The historicists and preterists even go so far as to blame the  dispensationalist view of those who believe in the literal restoration of Israel  on a Jesuit priest named Ribera in the 1500s. The claim is that the Catholic church (RCC) need a response to the claims that Revelation pointed to the RCC as the whore of Babylon, and thus Ribera created futurism which was then later passed on to John Darby, then to Scofield and Larkin.

Not only is that claim historically absurd due to the early church “fathers” that also held to a futuristic view, but Ribera’s commentary was never translated from Latin and there is no evidence that Darby ever read his works and he never referenced them. Furthermore, Ribera’s only similarity from what I have read is that there will be a future kingdom, there is nothing remotely similar about Ribera’s writings and the pre-millenial views. Moreover, the RCC has never believed in pre-millenialism or a pre-tribulation rapture, and those who hold to those views still identify the RCC as the beast and the antichrist so whatever views are attributed to Ribera, do not look like the scheme worked even if it were true.

This subject has had entire volumes written about it so I won’t do much justice to the subject here, but just a few short observations from Romans 9-11 which is a death blow to all 3 views regarding Israel:

*Paul argues that “hath God cast away his people that he foreknew?” Romans 11:1-2. So clearly, the contention is that someone had been cast away due to the dispensation of grace. If the church had replaced Israel, this question would not even be up for debate with Paul. If the church replaced Israel, why would the question be asked if God cast away His church which He foreknew? Who was Paul referring to that was cast away and that God foreknew? Surely Paul is talking about the literal Hebrews, and he answers the question with a resounding NO.

*Paul describes the nation of Israel as his brothers “according to the flesh”. Rom 9:3. The church are not Paul’s brothers according to the flesh, church members are made family by adoption through the Holy Spirit, not by promise of covenants with Israel. Rom 8:23. Thus Paul sets the entire tone of Romans chs 9-11 by identifying his discourse about Israel as being his physical lineage, not about promises given to the church by transference.

*The other view often cite Luke 13 where Jesus cursed the fig tree as evidence that Israel will never be restored. However, Rom 11:15clearly shows that God will raise Israel as a nation “from the dead”. Therefore Luke 13 can only be temporary as is confirmed by Paul in Romans 11:25.

*Paul repeatedly makes distinctions between the Jews and Greeks (gentiles) throughout Scripture (Rom 1:16Acts 28:29 which you will only find in a KJV). In Rom 11:13, Paul confirms that he is the apostle to the Gentiles and makes the distinction between his office over the Gentiles, and those who are of his flesh (v 14).

*Revelation 7:4-8 clearly shows that during the tribulation, 144,000 Jews will be sealed. If those who profess that the church replaced Israel, then let me ask to which of the twelve tribes listed in Rev 7:5-8 do you belong to?

*It is obvious from Daniel 9:25-272 Thess 2:1-12, and Rev 11:1-2 that there will be temple rites practiced again during the tribulation, such as would not be practiced by the church. Furthermore, saints saved during the tribulation are said to “sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb”. The church would not be singing the song of Moses, that is a clear indication that there will be literal, physical blood-line Jews present during the tribulation that are saved in accordance to God’s promises to them in the OT and Paul’s statement in Romans 11:26.

*In Rev 2:22:9, and 3:9, Jesus praises the Jewish churches for identify false Jews. First thing to note, is that in order to identifying a false Jew, there needs to be a true Jew as a standard of comparison. Secondly, there is nowhere in the epistles to the church where a Gentile believer is admonished to “try them which say they are Jews and are not”. During the dispensation of grace, there is neither “Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:27-28), but in Revelation 2-3, the emphasis is back on the Jew.

Another thing to note about Romans 11:26 where Paul says “all Israel will be saved”, if that was a reference to the church, would that not be redundant? The church is sealed right now (Eph 4:301:13), there is no possible loss of that salvation so why would Paul make a reference to a future salvation of the church? That makes it obvious that Paul is referring to a future salvation of Israel as a nation, and not to a future salvation that is made up of Gentile believers.

*If the church replaced Israel, why would Paul bother writing an entire book to HEBREWS, and James write a book “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad”?

This is, again, by no means an exhaustive approach, but is a very short analysis I have offered that demonstrates some serious flaws with Preterism, Historicism and Covenant Theology. I’ll spell check it later, so if there are critics who adhere to spell-checker-onlyism (the view that a discourse is only valid if everything contains perfect grammatical structure), you will be greatly disappointed.



  • By Charlie H. Campbell

    What is preterism?

    Preterism is the belief that the prophecies of Matthew 24 (spoken of by Jesus on the ) and the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation were largely or completely fulfilled in the past, particularly in the events leading up to, and surrounding the destruction of  by the Romans in A.D. 70.

    For those of you that are new to Bible study, Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation largely have to do with the tumultuous events leading up to Christ’s second coming.

    Those who adhere to preterism, refer to themselves as “preterists.”

    The word “preterism” is based on the Latin word preter, which means:


    And that’s what preterists believe.

    Preterists believe that those things that you and I would consider future events on the prophetic calendar…

    –the Rapture

    –the Abomination of Desolation

    –the Tribulation

    …are all things of the past.

    Preterists believe that these things were fulfilled in the turmoil and political upheaval that ensued when  was sacked by  and most of its inhabitants were slaughtered in A.D. 70.

    –Preterists even believe that Jesus came back in A.D. 70!!

    (Some preterists say He came back spiritually and invisibly in an act of judgment against the Jews in , and some say physically.)

    We’ll talk more about that in a couple of minutes.

    The Growth of Preterism

    Preterism, as a way of viewing Bible prophecy, has been growing very quickly, and it only seems to be gaining momentum.

    Why is that?

    There has been a tremendous increase in persuasive books, pamphlets, tapes, and websites by preterists.

    A very influential Christian author and teacher by the name of R.C. Sproul adopted a preteristic view of the end times [eschatology] back in the 1990’s, and released a book, “The Last Days According to Jesus,” outlining Sproul’s preteristic views regarding Bible prophecy.

    Hank Hanegraaff, who is a big fan of R.C. Sproul, and the president of The Christian Research Institute [C.R.I.] has just released the first of a series of fictional books about the Book of Revelation.

    The first book in this series is called: The Last Disciple

    In this book, Hank officially announces that he too, the “Bible Answer Man,” has adopted this preteristic view.

    This book, “The Last Disciple” (and the others that will follow), tell the story of Christians living through the events spoken of in Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation as though they already took place in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

    Hank’s desire, with this book, is to change the way people view Bible prophecy.

    This is an excerpt from a letter Hank, sent out to supporters of the C.R.I. ministry, shortly before the release of his book.

    Hank said…

    “Indeed, this initial novel is intended to be the first “shot” in a debate that I believe will produce a paradigm shift — a change in the way many in the church look at the end times… Indeed, in The Last Disciple book (and series), you will understand what the Bible really teaches regarding the end times.”

    Q. Did you catch that?

    Hank is hoping that his book produces “a paradigm shift — a change in the way many in the church look at the end times.”

    Advertisements for the book on C.R.I.’s website have said…

    “What if the prophecies of Revelation have already been fulfilled?…Discover the “code” of Revelation and get a whole new understanding of this powerful book.”

    Here is a copy of a recent edition of the Christian Research Journal, a C.R.I. publication.

    On the back cover is an advertisement for his book. It says in big letters:

    “What if everything you’ve read about the Rapture is wrong?”

    According to preterists, everything you’ve learned or heard about the rapture is wrong.

    –According to preterists, there will be no rapture!

    –And there is no coming time of Tribulation, that unbelievers need fear

    –There is no coming Antichrist, or mark of the beast.

    None of that.

    These things, they say, are false teachings or have already taken place.

    So, as you can imagine, with the release of Hank’s book, Christians are going to be facing some challenging questions about preterism and the end times in the months ahead.

    There are two kinds of preterism that are popular today.

    1. Full preterism

    2. Partial preterism

    1. Full Preterism

    Adherents to full preterism believe that all Biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, including…

    –the Great Tribulation

    –the Second Coming of Jesus

    –the bodily resurrection of believers

    –and the Great White Throne Judgment.

    Some preterists are even so bold as to say that the rapture occurred in A.D. 66 [J. Stuart Russell] and that we are living in an inaugurated new heavens and the new earth (talked about in Revelation 21-22)

    Of course, they have to spiritualize away numerous verses to try and explain what John really meant when he said there would be no more death, or mourning, or crying, pain, etc. (in Revelation 21:4).

    So that is the view of full preterism.

    Hank Hanegraaff and R.C. Sproul believe that this radical form of preterism is heretical.

    2. Partial Preterism

    Adherents to partial preterism (such as Hank Hanegraaff and R.C. Sproul) believe that Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation have only largely been fulfilled.

    Partial preterists (in contrast to full preterists) believe that Jesus only came back spiritually to judge Israel in A.D. 70, through the acts of the Roman army who destroyed the temple and killed a multitude of the Jews.

    Partial preterists believe there are some verses like Acts 1:9-11 that require Jesus to come back again in a physical and visible manner.

    (Other verses preterists believe point to a physical return would be:  1 Corinthians 15:51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 do speak of the future).

    What I’d like to do in our time together tonight is point out to you three passages that preterists point to that they believe support their view, after which I will make some comments.

    And then I will spend the rest of our time giving you reasons why the preterist view should be rejected.

    And I understand that many of you realize that the preterist position is not true, even now, and will be further convinced just a few minutes into our study. So it may sound redundant and even unnecessary that I go on with reason after reason why preterism should be rejected.

    But I plan on hitting this false teaching from many angles by unleashing an arsenal of truth on this topic.

    I do that for the sake of the preterist perhaps in our midst and for your sake. If a preterist brushes off or disagrees with one of my points, they will still have 8 or 9 others to consider.

    Matthew 24

    Turn with me to Matthew 24.

    The verse that we will be looking at is hands down the chief cornerstone, if you will, in the preterists’ defense of their view.

    Here in this chapter Jesus talks about the signs that will take place in the days leading up to His Second Coming in the clouds.

    He mentions, if you’ll notice…

    –in v. 15, the “Abomination of Desolation” [that time when the Antichrist will set himself up in the temple of God and declare himself to be God, 2 Thess. 2]

    –in v. 21, He mentions the time of the “great tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.” NAS

    –in v. 29, He mentions the sun and moon being darkened

    –and then in v. 30, He mentions “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky” NAS

    And then notice, v.34.

    This is the most popular proof text that preterists point to, there in v. 34, where Jesus says…

    Matthew 24:34

    34  “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” NKJV

    “Ahh…you see,” the preterists says, “Jesus promised that ‘this generation’—the generation that was alive at His time would by no means pass away until all of these things (the Abomination of Desolation, the great tribulation, the coming of the Son of Man) will have taken place.”

    Preterists insist, because of this verse, and a couple of others [that we’ll look at] that all of the things spoken about in this chapter, as well as…

    –the Tribulation events (spoken of in the Book of Revelation)

    –and Jesus’ second coming (mentioned here in Matt. 24 and in Revelation 19)…

    …had to have occurred before the generation of the people living at the time Jesus spoke, died off.

    Why? Well because, “Notice,” they say v. 34, “Jesus said…

    Matthew 24:34

    34  “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” NKJV

    Ahhhh…but what “generation” was Jesus talking about?

    A. Some have suggested that perhaps Jesus was not talking about the generation alive in His day, but about the Jewish race.

    But if you plug that interpretation into the text and reread the verse, it’s easy to see that this can’t be what Jesus meant.

    Let’s try plugging the words “Jewish people” into v. 34 where Jesus says “this generation.”

    Look there at v. 34…

    Matthew 24:34

    34  “Assuredly, I say to you, [the Jewish people] will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” NKJV

    Q. Could that have been what Jesus was saying?


    Jesus couldn’t have been saying that the Jewish people will by no means pass away until His second coming.

    The Jewish people are not going to pass away after Christ’s second coming.

    After His coming they will be present on the earth to go on to enjoy the unconditional promises that God made them in the Old Testament during Christ’s 1,000 year reign on the earth.

    It is during the Millennial reign of Christ that Jesus’ original disciples are going to rule over the 12 tribes of .

    Matthew 19:28

    28  So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, [this is an earthly scene according to Matthew 25:31 that happens after He returns to the earth] you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of [WHO?] Israel.” NKJV

    The nation of Israel will not pass away, even after Christ’s second coming.

    Q. So then, who was Jesus talking about when He said…

    Matthew 24:34

    34  “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” NKJV

    Jesus was looking into the future and talking about the generation of people who will be alive during the events that He just described: During the time of Tribulation unlike the world has ever seen, i.e. the Tribulation generation.

    There is good support contextually for this interpretation, and that is why numerous commentators including John Walvoord and John MacArthur adhere to this view as well.

    Notice the verse immediately preceding this one, v. 33.

    Jesus said…

    Matthew 24:33-34

    33 “even so you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I say to you, this generation [What generation? the generation who in v.33, sees all those things.] will not pass away until all these things take place.”

    What things?

    Things like…

    –The Abomination of Desolation (v.15)

    –The time of great tribulation (v. 21)

    –The sun and moon being darkened (v. 29)

    That generation (the Tribulation generation) will not pass away without also seeing the coming of the Son of Man come to the earth (mentioned in v. 30).

    Those “things” will indicate that Jesus is near, even “right at the door” just as a budding fig tree [v.32] indicates that summer, the harvest time, is near.

    These verses will be a great encouragement to the Jewish people and others who come to faith in Christ during the Tribulation.

    It will be an encouragement to them to know that these things in the great time of tribulation are not going to go on forever.

    There is going to be an end. Jesus is going to come back, and look…

    Matthew 24:31

    31  “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” NKJV

    We know that the “generation” Jesus was talking about in v. 34 could NOT have been the generation alive at the time He was speaking because that generation never saw “all” those things that would immediately precede His second coming.

    More could be said about this, but for time’s sake, let’s move on.

    Matthew 10

    Secondly, let’s turn to Matthew, chapter 10:23 a second proof text for the preterist position.

    Jesus said to his disciples…

    Matthew 10:23

    23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” NKJV

    “Ahhh, you see” the preterist says, “Jesus was saying that He would come again before His disciples would finish evangelizing the cities of Israel.”

    Is that what Jesus said there?


    He said (look at it again)…

    Matthew 10:23b

    “…you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

    And that is exactly what happened, the disciples never did complete their preaching ministry in .


    Because , to a large degree, would not receive their message.

    Jesus, even alludes to that (this unreceptivity) in the first part of the verse, Notice again there, v. 23…

    Matthew 10:23

    “When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. [That was going to be the response. Then Jesus says…] For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of  before the Son of Man comes.” NKJV

    Persecution and a prevailing Jewish unreceptivity to the Gospel prevented the disciples from going through all the cities of Israel!

    And so what did the disciples do?

    Acts 13:46, 18:6 (and other verses in the New Testament) tell us that they turned to the Gentiles.

    And thus Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled. He said…

    Matthew 10:23

    “…you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” NKJV

    Even R.C. Sproul, a preterist, who believes that Jesus came back in A.D. 70 in the judgment of Israel, says in The New Geneva Study Bible [of which he is the General Editor] that this passage (Matthew 10:23) refers to, a future second coming of Christ to judge the earth.

    The Book of Revelation

    Thirdly, preterists point to several verses in the Book of Revelation that they say support their view.

    Some of the verses they point to are…

    Revelation 1:1

    “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants — things which must shortly shortly (táchos) take place.”

    Revelation 2:16

    “…I am coming to you quickly (Gk. tachús).” –JESUS

    Revelation 11:14

    “The third woe is coming quickly (tachús).”

    Revelation 22:12

    “Behold, I am coming quickly (tachús).” –JESUS

    And preterists say, “See! Jesus said, ‘I am coming to you quickly.’ The events spoken about here in the Book of Revelation had to have been fulfilled quickly, within a generation of Christ’s death.”

    Was Jesus saying that He would come back quickly, as in soon after John heard Him say these words?


    The Greek word translated “shortly,” or “quickly,” here in these passages in the Book of Revelation is the Greek word “tachús.”

    This word does not refer to a soon event but a swift event.

    The Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

    (p. 814) says this word means:

    “quick, swift,” or “speedy.”

    Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 616) agrees, saying that the word tachu means:

    “quickly, speedily.”

    Vine’s Expository Dictionary of the New Testament Words (p. 913) also agrees saying that it means:

    “swift, quick…quickly.”

    John is not describing when the events will occur, but rather, he is describing the manner in which they will take place when they occur.

    He was saying that when these events took place, they would unfold suddenly, quickly, with great swiftness, even coming upon the world unexpectedly (like a thief in the night) [1 Thessalonians 5:2].

    Now, not only do these favorite verses of preterists (Matthew 24:34, Matthew 10:23, etc.) fail to support the preterist’s position, there are a multitude of other reasons why the preteristic view should be rejected.

    Some reasons why preterism should be rejected

    The first reason to reject the preterist interpretation is this…

    1.     None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s second coming as having already occurred.

    When we speak of church fathers we are talking about the leaders in the first three centuries of the church following the original disciples.

    There is zero indication, from known writings of the Church Fathers, that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.

    There are no early church writings that teach that Jesus returned in the first century.


    If we, as God’s people, are supposed to understand the prophecies of the New Testament according to the preteristic view, you would think that the Holy Spirit would have left at least one written record of this.

    The idea that Jesus came back in A.D. 70 was a foreign idea during the first five centuries of the church and then only mentioned sporadically after that until about 400 years ago.

    It wasn’t until the early 17th century—when preterist thinking was applied by the Jesuit Catholic scholar named Alcazar to the book of Revelation—that it was given very serious consideration.

    So this is reason number one to reject preterism:  None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s second coming as having already occurred.

    The second reason to reject the preterist interpretation is this…

    2.     The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.

    Not only did the early church not refer to the second coming as a past event, but over and over they referred to it as a future event.

    The oldest extra-Biblical Christian document known to exist is a document called:

    The Didache (pronounced DID-ah-kay).

    It is a simple distillation of Bible doctrine from the early church.

    Most scholars believe it was written near the close of the first century, most likely around A.D. 80.

    It was used and cited by many of the church fathers, as well as by the historian Eusebius (Church History ), so it’s early existence is well documented.

    The full text of The Didache was rediscovered in  in 1873.

    The interesting thing that this document proves [see 16:3-8] is that those who actually lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded Matthew 24:29-31—and the entire Olivet Discourse—as yet to be fulfilled prophecy [See p. 123-24 in John MacArthur’s book: The Second Coming]

    This early church document mentions…

    –the antichrist

    –the great tribulation

    –and the second coming of Christ as events that were yet to come.

    The Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70, that the preterist view is incorrect.

    Early church leaders, who stated in their writings, post A.D. 70, that they were looking forward to Christ’s Second Coming include…


    -Clement of



    -Justin Martyr

    Q. Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70…

    –modern day preterists

    –or those who were alive in A.D. 70, and the years immediately following?

    I’ll trust those that were alive at the time.

    That is reason number two the preterist view should be rejected:

    2. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the Church Fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.

    The third reason to reject preterism is this…

    3.     The Book of Revelation was not even written until approximately A.D. 95.

    Preterists believe that the Book of Revelation was a prophecy written by the apostle John as a description of the things that would shortly come upon  and the Jewish people as their city would be destroyed by the Romans.

    There is compelling evidence however, in the writings of the church fathers, that the Book of Revelation was written by the apostle John, approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of  in A.D. 70.

    A. Irenaeus

    Irenaeus was the bishop in the city of  in modern day  and lived from A.D. 120 – 202. He was a disciple of Polycarp [the bishop of ], who was a disciple of the apostle John. His credibility as a witness is considered to be outstanding.

    In Irenaeus’ work entitled, “Against Heresies” chapter 13:18, Irenaeus tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision.

    He says:

    “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; [that’s interesting, even Irenaeus believed that the Antichrist had not been revealed long after the destruction of !] for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [i.e. John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that [speaking of John’s vision] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

    Irenaeus says John had his vision of the apocalypse “towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

    Who was Domitian?

    Domitian was a Roman Emperor in the first century, whose reign did not even begin until A.D. 81!!

    His reign ended with his assassination on .

    Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of Book of Revelation long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of .

    Probably around A.D. 95.

    B. Clement of

    Clement of , who lived from about A.D. 150 to 215 also testifies to a late date for the writing of the book of Revelation, when he mentions that John was exiled to the isle of  until, QUOTE:

    “after the death of the tyrant,” another reference to Domitian.

    C. Tertullian

    Tertullian, who lived from about A.D. 160 – 220, also placed John’s exile under Domitian.

    D. Victorinus

    Victorinus, the bishop of Pettau, who suffered martyrdom around A.D. 304, in his commentary on the Book of Revelation states that John had his vision of the apocalypse under the reign of Domitian.

    E. Eusebius

    Eusebius, known as “the father of church history” due to his classic work Ecclesiastical History, lived from A.D. 260 – 340.

    Several times in his writings he also dates the Book of Revelation to

    the reign of Domitian.

    One of the reasons why his witness is especially weighty is because he had a wealth of early Christian literature at his disposal.

    F. Jerome

    Jerome, the one who translated the Scriptures into Latin, a work we known as the Vulgate, lived from 340 to 419.

    He states clearly in two places, that John was banished under Domitian, and that that is when he wrote the Apocalypse.

    These statements from some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, build a strong and compelling case that the Book of Revelation was written many years after A.D. 70, and the events surrounding the destruction of .

    I believe this evidence alone sends the whole preterist theory up in smoke.

    But there are other evidences, besides the writings of these men, that the Book of Revelation was completed late in the first century.

    For instance…


    appears as a prosperous city in Revelation 3:17.

    That’s interesting, because  was destroyed by an earthquake around A.D. 61, during Nero’s reign.

    How could  have recovered so quickly as to become prosperous by the time John wrote the Book of Revelation if indeed he did write the book in the early A.D. 60’s as Preterists claim?

    2. Polycarp’s To the Philippians

    Another evidence that the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of  is something that Polycarp said.

    Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and the bishop of the church in . He served the Lord for eighty-six years, before he was martyred for his faith about A.D. 155.

    In his letter called To the Philippians (paragraph 11:3) he reveals that his church, the church in  was not even in existence in the days of the apostle Paul, leading up to the destruction of . [It is interesting that Symrna is never mentioned in the Book of Acts, or in any other New Testament epistle.]

    That’s interesting, because the church at  was around at the time John wrote the Book of Revelation. It is one of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation  (and again in 2:8).

    3. The Condition of the Church

    Another evidence for a late date for the completion of the Book of Revelation is the condition of the churches at the time John wrote.

    –The church at  had lost its first love (Rev. 2:4).

    –And others like  (Rev. 3:14f) had fallen from the Faith.

    These are better explained by a late date than an early one.

    If the Book of Revelation was written anytime after A.D. 70, then it could not have been a prophecy about the destruction of  as preterists claim.

    A fourth blow to the preterist position is…

    4.     The Roman emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist as preterists suggest.

    Because Preterists believe that the Book of Revelation is a prophetic account about things that have already been fulfilled, they search high and low through historical records of the first century [primarily Josephus’ writings] in an attempt to find historical details that could possibly be the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation.

    One of their widely held beliefs is that the Antichrist, also referred to as “the beast” in the Book of Revelation, was actually the Roman Emperor Nero.

    Could this be?

    Could those passages about the Antichrist, the beast, the lawless one (2 Thess. 2:9) be a reference, not to a coming world ruler, but a reference to the Roman Emperor Nero?

    Not at all.

    Why do we know that?

    Well, look with me at 2 Thessalonians 2:8.

    2 Thessalonians 2:8

    “And then the lawless one [that is one of the titles given to the Antichrist] will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” NKJV

    Q. How does the Bible say this lawless one, the Antichrist, will be brought to an end?

    A. By Christ.

    Q. When will that happen? Notice the verse again.

    2 Thessalonians 2:8

    “And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” NKJV

    The Bible teaches that this lawless one, the Antichrist, will be brought to an end by the Lord Himself at Christ’s “coming.”

    Well, this verse poses some serious problems for preterists.

    How so?

    A. This was not how Nero died.

    For those of you who may be familiar with first century history, you know that Nero committed suicide at the age of 31, by cutting his own throat. [Source: “he drove a dagger into his throat” –Suetonius (c.69 – c.140) The Lives of the Twelve Caesars]

    Far from being consumed by the breath of Christ at his coming, Nero actually took his own life.

    That’s not all…

    B. Nero committed suicide two years before preterists say that Christ came back.

    Preterists (including partial preterists) believe that Jesus’ prophesy about coming back in Matthew 24, was fulfilled spiritually in A.D. 70.

    But Nero committed suicide in June of A.D. 68, two years before A.D. 70!

    Nero’s suicide, two years before A.D. 70, falls far short of being a fulfillment of what 2 Thessalonians 2:8 says will happen to the Antichrist.

    There are some other insurmountable problems that exist when it comes to the preteristic teaching that Nero was the Antichrist.

    C. Daniel 9:27 says that the prince who is to come, an Old Testament reference to the coming world leader, would make a seven year covenant relating to Israel. Nero never made any such covenant.

    D. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that this coming world leader will take “his seat in the , displaying himself as being God.” That never happened. Nero never stepped foot in the temple in .

    2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

    3  “Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [speaking of the Great Tribulation, the second half of the Tribulation period] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” NKJV

    E. In fact, Nero never stepped foot in .

    F. Revelation 13:16-17 says that under the Antichrist’s coming government, there will be given to the people of the world a mark on their hand or forehead that will permit them to buy and sell. Nothing of the sort ever occurred under Nero, nor ever has to this date.

    These facts relating to Nero are just another blow to the preterist view of the end times.

    None of these things ever happened.

    A fifth blow to the preterist position is…

    5.     There is no evidence that the great judgments of Revelation ever occurred.

    The Book of Revelation tells us that in the coming time of Tribulation, when God’s wrath is going to be poured out upon a Christ rejecting world, the earth will experience three waves of judgment, with each wave containing seven judgments each:

    The Book of Revelation tells us of…

    –7 seal judgments

    –7 trumpet judgments

    –7 bowl judgments

    …judgments that will devastate the earth.

    It will be a time of, as Jesus said,…

    Matthew 24:21

    “a great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

    These judgments, talked about in the Book of Revelation, describe…

    A. The turning of a 1/3 of the sea into blood (Rev. 8:8)

    B. The death of a third of all sea life dying (Rev. 8:9)

    C. A third of the world’s ships being destroyed. (Rev. 8:9)

    Look at Revelation 8:8-9…

    Revelation 8:8-9

    8  Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. 9 And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. NKJV

    Q. When did that ever happen in the events surrounding the destruction of ?

    A. Nothing like that has ever happened in the history of the world.

    The Book of Revelation also prophesied of…

    D. The most devastating earthquake that has ever taken place.

    Revelation 16:18-19

    “…there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth. 19 Now the great city [a reference to , see Rev. 11:8] was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell.” NKJV

    Q. When was there ever in the first century an earthquake that not only split Jerusalem into three parts but caused “the cities of the nations” [plural, not just Jerusalem] to fall?

    A. Well of course that never happened.

    That earthquake is still to come.

    The Book of Revelation also prophesied of…

    E. An event that will wipe out 25 percent of the earth’s population.

    Revelation 6:8

    “And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.” NKJV

    Q. When did that happen?

    John, seeing into the future also prophesied of…

    F. Three plagues that will wipe out one third of the remaining population.

    Revelation 9:18

    “By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed.” NKJV

    Q. Was a third of mankind killed by three plagues in the first century?

    A. No.

    The Book of Revelation also prophesies…

    G. Two witnesses

    Revelation 11:5-6

    “two witnesses…[who] will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth” [in , who will be able to destroy their enemies with fire (Rev. 11:5) and who will be able] “to smite the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.”(11:6)

    John goes on to say that these two witnesses will be killed, only to be resurrected and carried up to heaven in the sight of their enemies (in Rev. 11:12).

    There is no record that anything of the sort happened in the first century.

    Q. Where is there mention of any of these things being literally fulfilled in the annals of history, secular or Christian?

    There isn’t.

    It is only by departing from the normal, literal, historical, grammatical method of interpretation, and allegorizing, that preterists can seek to say that some events in  around A.D. 70 fulfilled some of these prophesies.

    None of things mentioned in the Book of Revelation, chapters 6-22 have happened.

    When they do, they are going to be fulfilled literally, just like God’s past judgments were fulfilled in:

    –The destruction of  and

    –The Days of Pharaoh before the Exodus

    –And the whole earth at the time of the flood spoken of in Genesis 7

    [See chapter 5 in The End Times Controversy, Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (general editors) where pastor and teacher John MacArthur deals with this topic in an in-depth manner.]

    Lastly, let’s turn to the Book of Zechariah, chapters 12.

    Zechariah prophesied, or foretold many of the events that will lead up to the Messiah’s coming in glory which he talks about in Zechariah chapter 14.

    This book proves to be very problematic for the preterist position.

    Chapter 12 here tells us that immediately before the Messiah’s coming in glory to the  in glory (14:4), that “all the nations of the world” will be gathered against .

    Let’s read chapter 12:3…

    Zechariah 12:3 God is speaking…

    3  “And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.” NKJV

    Zechariah 14:2 says the same thing…

    2 “For I will gather all the nations to battle against ;” NKJV

    Why is what Zechariah says here problematic for the preterist view?

    In A.D. 70, right before preterists say Jesus came back, it was only the Romans who came against .

    ADD: Charlie, what other nations existed at the time of A.D. 70, if any?

    But God says here in Zechariah that in the time immediately preceding Christ’s coming in glory that…

    Zechariah 14:2

    2 “…I will gather all the nations to battle against ;” NKJV

    This gathering of “all the nations of the earth” (Zech. 12:3) against  has never occurred.

    It will happen during the coming Tribulation period, at what is commonly referred to as the Battle of Armageddon [a battle that will begin in Megiddo as a gathering place and ultimately end up in Jerusalem] spoken of in Rev. 16:14, 16,  when…

    Revelation 16:14, 16

    14 “…[The] spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty…And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon.” NKJV

    So a sixth problem for the preterist is that…

    6.     The Bible says the battle that immediately precedes Christ’s second coming will involve a gathering of “all the nations” (Zechariah 12:3, 14:2) and “the kings of the earth” (Revelation ) and this never happened in the first century.

    Next, notice…

    Zechariah 12:8

    8  In that day [speaking of the time that this gathering against Israel will take place] the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the one who is feeble among them in that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the Angel of the LORD before them. NKJV

    The Bible prophesies here that in that invasion against “the inhabitants of ” that God is going to QUOTE: “defend the inhabitants of .” (Zech. 12:8)

    Q. What happened in A.D. 70, when the Romans invaded ?

    Josephus, that 1st century Roman historian, wrote an account of the event.

    He tells us that the Romans put to death a million Jews and led 100,000 into captivity.

    Well, that is hardly a description of God defending the inhabitants of , as Zechariah prophesies will happen.

    The deliverance that Zechariah prophesied is still yet to occur and will occur right before the Messiah comes (14:4).

    So this is a seventh problem for the preterist.

    7.     In the battle that takes place immediately before Jesus comes in glory, God is going to “defend the inhabitants of ” (Zechariah 12:8). That did not happen in A.D. 70.

    Another problem surfaces for the preterist in v. 9…

    Zechariah 12:9 says…

    “And it will come about in that day that I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against .”

    Not only is God going to defend (v.8) the inhabitants of , He is going to what?

    Notice the verse again. God is going to…

    “…destroy all the nations that come against .” (Zech. 12:9)

    Skip down to chapter 14.

    Still speaking of the same time period (right before the Messiah comes in glory) we read in v. 3…

    Zechariah 14:3 says…

    “Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle.”

    This is another insurmountable problem for those holding to the preterist position.

    Q. When did the Lord ever, in the first century, gather together all the nations against  to battle, and then destroy them?

    A. He didn’t.

    There is nothing in the history of the ’s that would qualify as a fulfillment of what Zechariah foretold there.

    So, problem number eight…

    8.     God said He would “destroy all the nations” that would “come against ,” and that never happened (Zechariah 12:9, 14:3).

    Let’s just look at one more problem for the preterist.

    It surfaces in v. 9…

    Zechariah 14:4 says…

    “And in that day His feet [the LORD’s (v.3)] will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.”

    When the Lord comes back, and “every eye” sees Him, like Revelation 1:7 says, He is going to come back to the Mount of Olives (the very place of His ascension-Acts 1:12) and it is literally going to split in two.

    Well, it barely needs to be said, but that never happened in A.D. 70, and if preterists say that it did, when did it get moved back to the way it is today?

    It’s much easier to see Zechariah 14:4 as something that will be fulfilled in the future.

    So, for you note takers, no. 9…

    9.     The Bible says that when the LORD comes back, the Mount of Olives is going to be split in two, and that never happened in A.D. 70, the year preterists say Jesus came back (Zechariah 14:4).

    So, we have seen that there are some very good reasons why preterism should be rejected.

    First we noted that their own proof texts fail to support their case.

    Then we went on to see that…

    1. None of the church fathers mentioned Christ’s second coming as having already occurred.

    2. The Christians alive during A.D. 70, as well as the Church Fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event.

    3. The Book of Revelation was not even written until approximately A.D. 95, long after the events of surrounding A.D. 70.

    4. The Roman Emperor Nero could not possibly have been the Antichrist as preterists suggest.

    5. There is no evidence that the great judgments of Revelation were ever literally fulfilled.

    6. The Bible says the battle that immediately precedes Christ’s second coming will involve a gathering of “all the nations” and “the kings of the earth” and this never happened in the first century.

    7. In the battle that takes place immediately before Jesus comes in glory, God is going to “defend the inhabitants of ” (Zechariah 12:8), something that did not happen in A.D. 70.

    8. God said He would destroy the nations that would “come against ,” and that never happened (Zechariah 12:9, 14:3).

    9. The Bible says that when the LORD comes back, the Mount of Olives is going to be split in two, and that never happened in A.D. 70, the year preterists say Jesus came back (Zechariah 14:4).

    For these reasons it is clear to see that preterism is an incorrect view of the end times.

    May I encourage you to examine the Scriptures daily!

    We must hold up everything that men like Hank Hanegraaff (and others who we have greatly respected) to the Word of God (Isaiah , 1 Thessalonians , Acts ).

    Recommendations for further Study: