Full Preterism and Salvation by Creeds: A Brief Note

In the recent full preterism panic, the exegetical response seems quite limited, and the final backstop argument always seems to be the clarity and importance of the creedal statements about the future return of Christ and bodily resurrection of the saints.

Some have even opined that the creeds are “infallible.” They are Protestant. Yikes.

Given that certain well-known figures are being castigated and told effectively to “bow and kiss the ring to get my blessing” based substantially upon such creedal statements, I have been interested to see whether or not the authorities will follow up with the requisite anathemas. If someone is going to place such weight upon the creeds, after all, I think they should be both consistent and thorough.

Here is one area where the consistency is overlooked: the Athanasian Creed’s contribution to eschatology. The Athanasian Creed states,

He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This creed is even more explicit about a future “resurrection” of “bodies” than the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and the timing of it, at His coming. But it gets even more explicit. It concludes with this spicy nugget:

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

If you’re going to go full-creedal (hyper-creedal), then you have to include the Athanasian Creed, one of the great Ecumenical Creeds. And if you include this one, you need to be consistent and pronounce the anathema, i.e., eternal damnation in everlasting fire, upon anyone who denies the future bodily resurrection of all people unto judgment at the future coming of Christ. According to the creed, anyone who denies these dogmas cannot be saved.

If you don’t accept this creed, or even just this extreme part of this creed, then you are selective in your creedalism. But then you just lost your creedal high ground. You just knocked yourself off your creedal high horse. Why some Ecumenical creeds and not others? Why some parts but not these? There is no reason anyone should take seriously your appeal to the creeds.

The issue is personal to me, also.

When I debated Don Preston on full preterism over ten years ago now, I was asked something to the effect of whether I believed full preterists were true Christians. I made glib reference to Sam Frost’s recently published book, which made a prevaricating statement, but sounded generally pessimistic on the question.

I then added that, from the perspective of the creeds, full preterists were not Christians. I should have made my position much more clear: I did not at the time think the perspective of the creeds was a fair gauge of the question.

I have become more clear personally over time, and want to be even clearer now. I think the creeds are just wrong on some fine eschatological points.

The early creeds appear hundreds of years after the apostolic era. They provide no exegetical support explaining their eschatological dogma. In my opinion, their eschatological statements should be given very little authority.

I am not the judge of people’s hearts, certainly not of people who in good faith are making and effort to understand the scriptures, yet profess faith in Christ and show fruit consistent with that profession. Salvation is by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. There is no salvation by faith in creeds or by submission to ecclesiastical authorities. I would be a fool to judge a person’s salvation by reference by such standards. I will not do it.

I want to hear of your faith in Christ and what that faith means to you, but far more importantly, I want to see what you mean by living it out in the fruit of the Spirit, relationships, and social values.

To any full preterists who remember me as saying something detrimental about them otherwise, I apologize. I did not mean that really then, and I certainly do not now.

I do think that full preterism can lead some to abandon the faith, for various reasons, if taken to extremes. But that is true of all distinctives in doctrine. I also hasten to add that I affirm the vast majority of the creedal statements as true, according to how I understand scripture. I just think the understanding of eschatology, in their very limited statements on it, was warped by the mid-200s or so, when the Apostles Creed was developed.

To those, especially ecclesiastical authorities, who think they can strong-arm full preterism from a creedal position, perhaps a meditation on Galatians 5:12 is in order for you. Back down from legalism or go all the way! You have a creedal duty to pronounce the anathema. If you don’t, we’ll know you’re not really serious after all.