John Noe's Charismatic Preterist Idealism & His False Accusations Levied Against Full Preterism

The bulk of this response deals with Noe's inability to answer a direct and clear question related to 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and his accusations that Full Preterism teaches a "spiritual" kingdom and that we allegedly do not teach on the kingdom enough - like he does. Noe follows this up with the accusation or concern that our view of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge has contributed to a decline of Christianity in the U.S - along with us not teaching teaching on the kingdom and that when we do it is a spiritual one. Our teaching on the kingdom is equivalent to other false (futurist) views on the kingdom - per Noe. But its alright because Noe wrote another article in the ETS journal where he claims that we will most likely experience a revival of the charismata soon - due to his leadership in presenting the Charismatic Preterist Idealist approach to scri pture.

I have already given a refutation of his first interview. In that he stated that Christians are capable of holding to false doctrine because they "WANT" too in light of the clear teaching of scri pture. In Noe's second interview he demonstrates that - "thou art the man" Mr. Noe.

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity given me to express my disagreements with Mr. Noe in his first and now second interview. I will seek to voice my concerns as graciously as I can while holding to my Biblical responsibility to test all things in the light of scri pture.

1) My first and overall concern is similar to my perception of Noe’s first interview. In the first interview Mr. Noe had the opportunity to tell the ETS lecturer that he was mistaken on what Full Preterism believes and teaches and that what he thought was Full Preterism was actually Hyper Preterism. Noe had the opportunity to set the record straight but instead decided he wanted to coin his own term and be the leader of it “Preterist Idealism” – seeking to kick start it in his article in the ETS journal. Much could be said of this approach, but I’ll just say it is sad and I don’t find it honorable or honest in the least bit. So far we have had two professing Full Preterists who have been charismatics and have sought to coin this term “Preterist Idealism.” One could not shake or drop his existentialism and charismatic theology at the narrow gate of Full Preterism and ended up forsaking the position altogether and now attacks us claiming that we overthrow the faith of Chrisitians (Todd Dennis). Noe has not gone all the way back to futurism, but in this second interview he has attacked the Full Preterist view nonetheless. Let me explain why I feel so strongly that Noe’s approach and accusations are false.

2) Noe levied two very serious charges against Full Preterism. The first was that we do not emphasize the kingdom in our teaching and the second is that Full Preterist cessationalists are no different than futurists who do not present Christ and the Kingdom as preeminent in their teachings. He lumped us in with futurists and claimed that all these views are the result of the decline of Christian growth in the United States. Please listen to the tail end of the interview if you think I am mistaken in this. Why? Well according to Noe, there are two problems with the Full Preterist view:

a) We believe the miraculous sign gifts such as tongues, prophecy, and knowledge have “ceased” at the arrival of that which is perfect/the Second Coming/New Creation (1 Cor. 13:8-12/Isaiah 52:8 [“eye to eye”] Revelation 21-22:4, 10-12).

b) We allegedly do not put the kingdom as a priority in our teaching and we teach that the Kingdom is “spiritual.”
Let me now address these accusations or concerns that Noe has levied against us.

First of all, as Michael Loomis noted it took Noe 20 minuets to answer his question on what “the perfect” is in the text and what exactly “ceased” (if anything) in AD 70. My point is that Noe dodged the heart of the question entirely. He correctly identified the “knowing in part” as the Old Covenant (OC) and “the perfect” as the New Covenant and went to the book of Hebrews to support the superiority of the NC over against the fading of the OC citing Hebrews 8:13. Michael sought to help Noe by giving an illustration of a glass being half empty (representing the OC) and then the filling up of the rest of the glass as the NC revelation - reaching its fulfillment in AD 70. The question was, “Once the glass is full, don’t we drink the whole glass and not just half of it?” This implied that the gifts continued post AD 70. First of all the illustration does not even remotely fit the context of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 as they applied it to the two covenants. For the illustration to apply, the first half of the glass (OC revelation) would be water (“in part,” “childish,” “seeing a poor reflection,”) and the filling up of the second half of the glass would be the wine of the NC revelation. When Christ’s Second Coming/Appearing (which Noe downgraded the significance of in his first interview BTW) took place, the glass was transformed into a full glass of wine for the Church to drink from – the first half of water (which they claimed was the OC in the illustration) – having been “transformed” (2 Cor. 3-5) and now “disappeared” or “vanished” (Heb. 8:13).

Unfortunately Noe (and Michael to a certain extent) did not address the question regarding the “ceasing” or the “disappearing” of the OC order and its relationship to “prophecies,” “tongues,” and “knowledge.” (1 Cor. 13:12; Hebrews 8:13).

Since Noe admits that the “in part” was the weak/beggarly and insufficient OC system and “the perfection” is the NC system, then this is how the text is broken down:

OC – Know in part / NC – Perfection comes. AD 70 “imperfect disappears.”
OC – Child / NC – A man. AD 70 childish things “put behind.”
OC – Poor reflection in a mirror / NC – See face to face.
OC – Know in part / NC – Know as I am fully known.
*OC =’s imperfect disappearing/putting behind or away childish things/prophecy, tongues, and knowledge ceasing.

Noe did not address the questions and the parallel structure of the text itself. In other words he AVOIDED the heart of the question. So how did he answer it? He went to 1 Corinthians 12:28-29 and he and Michael used some sarcasm and asked, “Yeah, we don’t see these Full Preterist cessationalists claiming that the gift of “teaching” or the gifts of helps “ceased” in AD 70. Uh, well, where does Paul ever say that they would?!? John and Michael – how about you stick to the text at hand and what Paul said would “cease” instead of running to a passage where Paul does not say all those gifts would? Noe mentions this is an issue of “hermeneutics” and then blindly ignores following them in addressing the text at hand.

Noe (still avoiding the text) decided that the charismatic miraculous gifts were still for today because the gospels and the NT use the words “the Kingdom” and “the Church.” His reasoning was: “If we still have the Kingdom and the Church Post AD 70, then the “model” of the Kingdom in the gospels and in the book of Acts (which include these miraculous signs) MUST also be here today post AD 70. What in the world kind of “argument” is that? Surely Noe knows that the gospels and the NT were written in the TRANSITION period right? Surely one could list a number of things that were taking place during this transition period (the “working model”) that did not continue post AD 70 (such as obedience to the OC “jots and tittles” Matthew 5:17-18) – as Noe himself would acknowledge did not carry over? Is the Kingdom then STILL “at hand” then? After all, this was apart of the “working model” period right?

3) Noe oddly appealed to the Great Commission of (Matthew 28:18-20 & thus indirectly to Mark 16:15-17 I suppose) to support that the miraculous sign gifts are still for today. He said that since the disciples were called to preach the gospel and teach the “nations,” then that commission hasn’t changed. And therefore since that commission (“the working model”) included the miraculous (cf. Mark 16:15-17), then if we are to continue to preach and teach the nations, then the miraculous must also be with us today. First of all, we encounter the same problem with “the nations” in (Rev. 10:11). Apparently Noe is saying this same Great Commission which includes these “nations” must include post AD 70 (2000 + years away nations) and therefore the charismata must be included in the “teaching” of these nations. They do not. Paul specifically says that the gospel reached “all nations” (Greek ethnos, Romans 16:25-26) prior to AD 70 and therefore the Church had fulfilled Jesus’ commission and commandment in (Mark 13:10 and Matthew 28:18-20). This was fulfilled at the “end of the age” which Noe knows was the end of the OC age in AD 70 – when prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would “cease.” Is there anywhere where the Bible says evangelism was to cease post AD 70? Of course not! The entire function of the NC Kingdom/Church/New Creation is to do just that (Isaiah 65-66/Revelation 21-22:17). How in the world this means that prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge is to be carried over post AD 70 is beyond me.

4) To be quite honest I almost fell out of my chair at Noe’s second charge against Full Preterism. He asked Michael a rhetorical question as to where Jesus or the NT ever taught a “spiritual kingdom”? He apparently has a problem with us teaching this. The other was that we don’t present Christ and the Kingdom in our teaching. Wow. Well, first of all anyone reading and knowing their OT and NT, understands that the Messianic Kingdom is synonymous with: The New Creation, Salvation, Redemption, Resurrection, Seed, The New Jerusalem, The New Temple, The New Priesthood, Spiritual Water, Bread, etc… Noe actually is claiming we don’t teach on these topics?!? In all sincerity (with sarcasm thrown in) – “What planet has or is Noe on when he makes these kind of unfounded accusations?!?” Jesus and the NT writers do NOTHING but present these NC KINGDOM “true” and “SPIRITUAL” anti-type realities in contrast to the physical OC types and shadows of the OC Kingdom.

5) Noe lost me when he wanted to develop the “physical” “everlasting” kingdom promises which we allegedly don’t emphasize. It seems they were fulfilled in the physical birth of Jesus. Okay, so what was Noe’s point here? I have no idea. I do know that we don’t know Jesus any more “after the flesh” and that Jesus has gone back to the glory that He had with the Father before the incarnation – obviously post AD 70. Yes, the “everlasting kingdom” continues to expand in the hearts and minds of men and women today and the gospel changes societies wherever it goes. So how does this “prove” Noe’s point that we are guilty of teaching a “spiritual” kingdom and on par with the twisted futurists teachings on the kingdom – I’ll never know! Some how we all need John Noe and his “Preterist Idealism” to save us though.

6) Noe also tried the typical Charismatic cop-out that we aren’t experiencing a revival of the outpouring of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, because of these false views of the kingdom (which includes Full Preterism) that are being taught today. We are filled with unbelief. So Noe comes to save the day by writing another article in the ETS explaining why they will “soon” come back. Why? Well, apparently it is because Noe is spearheading charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” Oh please. I will be more than happy to take Noe to any hospital in the U.S. or in the deepest darkest jungles (he can pay for that, since he admitted he has a lot of money in his first interview) – and let’s watch Noe perform some miracles and healings with HIS FAITH. This is a tired old Charismatic and Pentecostal cop-out that teaches you aren’t healed because you lack faith – or “you must haven’t forgiven someone in your past” etc… We’ve all heard the lines before.

Noe of course acknowledges that most “tongues” and “prophecy” taking place today is “learned behavior” and that there are “abuses” out there. At least we agree on that. But this is no different than ANY Charismatic or Pentecostal group I’ve encountered. They all criticize other “extreme” groups and claim they are the “mature” or “balanced” group in which the Spirit is “really moving.” I encountered this in the Assembly of God, The Vineyard, and Calvary Chapel movements. Noe offers nothing new – same old lines.

7) I firmly believe with all of my heart that Noe owes the Full Preterist community an apology for his unfounded charges and accusations. I firmly believe that just as Ed Steven’s has done a disservice to Full Preterism by adopting a literal rapture view, Noe has equally done so with his charismatic “Preterist Idealism.” It is my honest and sincere prayer that both men will examine the scri ptures more clearly and turn from teaching what they have thus far.

8) For a more Biblical approach to the issue of the cessation of prophecy, tongues, and in part knowledge, please see my article on this subject on my web site. Also read David Green's and William Bell’s. Don Preston has also done a wonderful job on this topic and will have a book out soon covering this issue.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to express where I agree and disagree with some of the guests on the show from time to time.