How Could the Church be Wrong for 2000 Years?
How could the church have been wrong about the second coming for 2000 years? This is a common objection to preterism[1], and I’m going to make four points to try to shed some light on this.
Point #1 – Just because a doctrine has been held for a long time does not mean it is correct; just ask Protestants and evangelicals.
Many of the doctrines Protestants and evangelicals hold dear were not so popular within the Christian establishment for much of Christian history. Here are a few examples:
- salvation by faith alone (as opposed to faith plus works)
- the memorial view of communion (as opposed to transubstantiation[2])
- believer baptism (as opposed to infant baptism)
- the Roman Catholic Pope is not the Vicar of Christ[3]
These are some examples of Protestant/evangelical views that were not so popular within the Christian establishment for much of Christian history. In fact, for much of Christian history, up until the Reformation in around the 1500s, those who held such views were considered heretics. Many Christians were burned at the stake, drowned, and stretched on a racks for teaching such things. Yet Protestants and evangelicals argued (in varying degrees) that these views were nevertheless correct because they were held by the earliest church, Jesus and the apostles! In other words, these views are taught in the Bible.
There was a famous eighteen-day debate that happened in 1519 in Leipzig, Germany, between the Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic John Eck. Luther and Eck debated such doctrines as “the infallibility of church councils” and “justification by faith alone.” Eck argued that Luther could not possibly be correct because nobody in the Christian establishment held his views for 1,500 years…to which Luther responded:
“Neither the church nor the Pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture.”[4]
Luther was right. It doesn’t matter how long a doctrine has been held by the postbiblical Christian establishment—or what the current Christian establishment believes about it—what matters is whether or not the doctrine is biblical. Because if a doctrine is taught in Scripture, then that means the earliest church—Jesus and the apostles—believed it!
If Christians today must reject the preterist view of the second coming simply because it opposes the long-held/current doctrines of the Christian establishment, then Christians should also have to reject those Protestant and evangelical views that I just listed above (and many others) for the very same reason! In other words, we should all become Roman Catholics because they were the Christian establishment for most of Christian history.
Christians need to realize that some of today’s most popular church doctrines were not always so popular. Think about the traditional view of hell, which holds that unbelievers will suffer eternal conscious torment (after death). While this has been the prominent view of the Christian establishment for most of Christian history, it was not so popular among the earliest Christians. Irenaeus (c. 130–202), for example, believed in conditional immortality, which holds that only Christians will live forever. Those who reject Christ will eventually, after they pay for their sins, perish out of existence (be annihilated).[5]
Clement (c. 150–215) and Origen (c. 184–253), on the other hand, believed in universalism, which holds that everyone will eventually repent and be saved—if not in this life, then in the next (after death).[6]
While the traditional view of hell (eternal conscious torment) has been the prominent view of the Christian establishment for much of Christian history—as it is today—it was not always the most popular view among the earliest Christians. In fact, the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge notes that in the first five or six centuries of Christianity, only one of the six theological schools—which were located in Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, Edessa/Nisibis, Ephesus, and Rome—taught the eternal conscious torment view of hell. Can you guess which one? The school in Rome! Four of the other schools taught universalism, and one taught conditional immortality.[7] The reason why the eternal conscious torment view became the prominent view of the Christian establishment is that the Roman Catholic Church was the Christian establishment for most of Christian history!
A cynic might argue that the reason why the Roman Catholic Church promoted the eternal conscious torment view of hell was not so much for biblical reasons as for political ones. What better way to get the masses—who could not read and had very limited access to Bibles (if at all)—to obey your edicts than to threaten them with eternal conscious torment for disobeying you? Church and state were tightly intertwined throughout much of Christian history, which would have made the traditional view of hell almost irresistible for those in power.
The traditional view of the second coming may have served a similar political end. What better way to keep the masses from rising up against a corrupt political/religious establishment than to convince them that Jesus is coming back soon to fix everything? But this is just conjecture.
Whatever the reason such doctrines won the day—so far at least—we can be sure of one thing: the popularity and longevity of a doctrine does not make it true. What matters is whether or not the doctrine agrees with the inspired words of Scripture! I’m sure all Protestants and evangelicals would agree with that…right?
Point #2 – Considering how much more information we have available today than at any other time in history, we should not be surprised that significant doctrinal changes would be happening right now (such as the preterist view of the second coming gaining in popularity).
When the earliest postbiblical creeds and traditions were written and established, most Christians could not even read, let alone have access to a Bible (or any other book, for that matter). The printing press would not be invented for centuries!
On the other hand, Christians today can go to Biblegateway.com and access more than sixty different English translations of the Bible, not to mention translations in other languages. People today can google a tiny portion of a Bible verse (or paraphrase) and locate the correct verse within seconds. The internet gives us instant access to facts and information that would have taken previous generations hours, weeks, months, or even years to find—if the particular fact was even known at that time. Christians today can go to BibleHub.com and access Bible study aides such as commentaries, lexicons, interlinears, concordances, and so on. Earlier generations of Christians would have been in awe over the resources available today.
Moreover, since the writing of the postbiblical creeds, many more manuscripts have been discovered, which has vastly aided our biblical understanding. Linguistic and cultural studies have also dramatically improved. People today have access to archeological, historical, and geographical data that was simply not known when many of the earliest postbiblical creeds and traditions were written and established. Christians today have a much better understanding of the world in general, and as a result, we are better able to separate fact from myth, literal from nonliteral, truth from error, biblical from nonbiblical. This isn’t called the Information Age for nothing!
In the last fifty years alone, a wealth of information has been discovered. Acclaimed New Testament scholar N.T. Wright recently said,
“I am very fortunate in that I came of age as a scholar just when the contemporary revolution in modern Jewish studies was happening so that we’ve got the Dead Sea Scrolls…and modern additions [writings] of Josephus. And we know much, much more about the early Rabbis than we did [even] fifty years ago because of massive work that’s gone on. So we can reconstruct quite a lot about how Jews in that time period were thinking.”[8]
In other words, the information acquired in the last fifty years alone has dramatically aided our understanding of the Bible!
Besides this, there are many more people reading the Bible today than ever before—which means there is much more brainpower working to understand it. The early postbiblical creeds and traditions were written/established by a tiny fraction of the Christian population—those who could read and had access to books of the Bible. Since then, millions more Christians have had a chance to read, study and reflect upon what the Bible says. Christians today have many more centuries of accumulated research and reflection on which to base doctrinal conclusions. All these millions of Christians studying the Bible from every angle, bias, culture, education level, age group, and so forth have significantly increased the pool of biblical knowledge.
Therefore, we should not be surprised to see significant doctrinal changes happening at this point in history. The printing press in the 1400s led to the Reformation, and the Information Age is leading to another reformation of sorts—preterism.
Point #3 – Only recently have Christians been free to go wherever the Bible leads without having to worry about significant repercussions for straying outside the bounds of “orthodoxy.”
Throughout much of postbiblical Christian history, those who strayed too far out of the acceptable bounds of “orthodoxy” faced persecution, torture, and even death—from fellow “Christians” no less! Roman Catholics killed Protestants; Protestants killed Roman Catholics; Catholics and Protestants killed Anabaptists. While Christians are still persecuted today in many places around the world (such as the Middle East, North Korea, and China), at least Christians today don’t have to worry about fellow “Christians” burning them at the stake or stretching them on a rack because of doctrinal differences.
This is not to say there are no repercussions today for opposing the Christian establishment. The religiously incorrect still pay a steep price. For example, if a Christian challenges the traditional futurist[9] view of the second coming, he will likely be frowned upon by the Christian establishment—if not declared a “heretic,” booted from his church, and threatened with eternal hellfire for good measure. And if that “heretic” happens to be employed by a denomination or church, he will almost certainly be fired in short order. I personally know many pastors this has happened to.
A telling joke was uttered during a formal public debate between James White and Steve Blakemore. Blakemore said:
“I might be able to learn something from you [White], but if I learn too much from you, I could no longer be a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary. So I may have to put on the brakes at some point just for my own sinful self-interest.”[10]
There are still stiff consequences for opposing the religious establishment. As Voltaire said, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”
Still, Christians today are freer than ever before to go wherever the Bible leads—and reformation is in the air.
Point #4 – Many of the most prominent leaders of the Christian establishment over the centuries admitted they had significant deficiencies in their biblical understanding.
Eusebius—the “Father of Church History”—admitted he was virtually clueless about the book of Revelation:
“Yet, having formed an idea of it [the book of Revelation] as a composition exceeding my capacity of understanding, I regard it as containing a kind of hidden and wonderful intelligence on the several subjects which come under it. For though I cannot comprehend it, I still suspect there is some deeper sense underlying the words.”[11]
In other words, Revelation is probably important, but it beats me what it’s about.
Around a thousand years later, Martin Luther said about Revelation: “Let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.”[12] In other words, nobody really knows what it’s about anyway, so just go with your gut. In fact, in Luther’s earlier days, he claimed Revelation was “neither apostolic nor prophetic”—although he would come to appreciate it as time went on.[13]
Then there’s John Calvin, who once purportedly said he didn’t understand Revelation.[14] Whether that’s true or not, it was one of the only books of the Bible he did not write a commentary about.
A few hundred years later, Charles Spurgeon, the notable Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century, commented: “Only fools and madmen are positive in their interpretations of the Apocalypse (Revelation).”[15]
Think about all this admitted ignorance. Centuries after the extrabiblical creeds and traditions were written/established, some of Christianity’s most notable spokesmen admitted they were essentially clueless about an entire book of the Bible. Given this, would it really be all that surprising to find that the early (postbiblical) creeds/traditions erred about some doctrines? Personally, I’d be surprised if they didn’t!
Keep in mind, doctrinal change does not mean that biblical truth changes. Biblical truth—truth of any kind, for that matter—does not change. Yet humans are finite and fallible; therefore, we do not have a perfect understanding of biblical truth. We are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God and his Word. As our knowledge increases, so will our understanding of the Bible. And our doctrines may evolve to better reflect our understanding. The Dutch theologian Louis Berkhof once said:
“Creeds [and traditions] are subject to change and have in the course of history been enriched with new elements, received more careful formulation, and even undergone certain transformations.”[16]
The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely states, “The Judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (chapter 1, section 10).
In other words, Scripture trumps creeds and traditions. So if our creeds and traditions are found wanting, they should be revised…and they have been. For example, the original Nicene Creed was amended to include more detail about the Holy Spirit. The original version read, “[We believe] in the Holy Spirit.” While today’s version reads, “[We believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.”
Another example of a significant change is the Westminster Confession of Faith. The original version stated that the pope is the Antichrist:
“There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the church, against Christ and all that is called God” (chapter 25, section 6).
Today’s version wisely omits this sentence.
I think it’s time for another one of these revisions, this time regarding the timing and nature of the second coming…because the biblical and historical evidence demands it!
For more information about the topics discussed in this article, please check out my book “The End Is Here: How the New Testament’s Prophecies Were Fulfilled,” available NOW on Amazon!
By Alex Polyak, director of The Bible Fulfilled, 12/19/25
[1] Preterists (aka full preterists or consistent preterists) believe the second coming happened in AD 70, based on passages such as Matthew 16:27-28, where Jesus said to the people of his day: “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (See also Matt. 10:23, Matt. 24:30–34, Matt. 26:64, Phil. 4:5, Heb. 10:37, James 5:8, Rev. 22:7).
[2] Transubstantiation is the Roman Catholic view of communion that holds that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. Most Protestants and evangelical don’t believe this.
[3] The earthly representative of Jesus Christ, exercising authority and leadership over the Church.
[4] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language 2nd Ed (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 241.
[5] Irenaeus based this view on passages such as John 3:16, which says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Another passage that supports this view is Romans 6:23, which says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
[6] Universalists base their view on passages such as 1 Timothy 4:10, which says “God…is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
[7] Steve Gregg, All You Want to Know About Hell: Three Christian Views of God’s Final Solution to the Problem of Sin (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 128–129.
[8] N. T. Wright and Tom Holland, “How St. Paul Changed the World,” in Unbelievable, YouTube, 6:00, viewed Jan. 3, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlf_ULB26cU&t=452s.
[9] Futurists believe the second coming has not happened yet.
[10] Alpha and Omega Ministries, “The Bondage of the Will Debate—White vs Blakemore,” Nov. 1, 2013, 1:59, viewed Nov. 25, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9BEqpiQHDo.
[11] Bruce Gore, “The Apocalypse in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” April 29, 2013, YouTube, 3:19, viewed Nov. 24, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeqz1S2tX7M&list=PLYFBLkHop2anlJ9wrDXdhugr95AJ3dMKA&index=4&t=0s.
[12] David Hulme, “Apocalypse Now, Later or Never?” Vision (Winter 2008), viewed Nov. 23, 2023, https://www.vision.org/apocalypse-does-book-of-revelation-foretell-the-end-of-the-world-23.
[13] Ibid.
[14] According to a French biographical dictionary from the eighteenth century. Read more about this in “Why Didn’t John Calvin Write a Revelation Commentary? Get the Facts” by Daniel Isaiah Joseph, March 16, 2022.
[15] Rev. Robert S. Rayburn, “The Revelation 1:1–5,” Faith Presbyterian Church, posted August 24, 2008, viewed Nov. 23, 2023, https://www.faithtacoma.org/revelation/2008-08-24-am.
[16] Brian Martin, Behind the Veil of Moses: Piecing Together the Mystery of the Second Coming (Xulon Press, 2009), 437.
